So-Called Wealth Re-Distribution

The redistribution argument. Do you understand that history informs us that when the redistribution model is applied those forcing the redistribution ends up with most of the money? In this country if you redistribute the money as you see fit the money will end up back in the hands of those who are good at making money. Or will you make that illegal as well? And, how many freedoms will you trample to make sure that doesn’t happen?

But, just who are the rich in this country? Bill Gates sure, but is he really an accurate description of the rich. 80 percent of the rich in this country are first generation rich. Meaning they did not inherit their wealth. They are compulsive savers and work-o-holics. They live in middle class neighborhoods surrounded by people with a fraction of their wealth, and they don’t blow their own horns about it. I think you need to ask yourself which group of Americans you belong too. Those who wish to build a bigger and brighter America, or those who seek to get what they can from America. Perhaps you need to review JFK's most famous quote. Your choice. Choose well.

Since when does one "side" get in power and stay in power?

It goes back and forth.. in 2->6 yrs you'll get back in there and vote more gigantic subsidies for your corporation.

Can't we have a little bite between now and then?

Unless maybe you're afraid people will begin to enjoy sharing and not want to stop?

Many "1st Generation" wealthy are blissfully unaware of, or ignorant to,
the scams (Blackwater, KBR, SEC, AMA, FDA, DoD, DoJ, TSA) they benefit from, to get what they want.

When someone comes up with a new rule weakening, or making their scam obsolete, they freak out:

"Oh no! We'll be poor now; just like all the others!"

tisk tisk

If you haven't had a meaningful pay raise since the 1970's then I would say you have made some serious career course errors.

I am probably what you would consider one of the wealthy but I made it the hard way, and my Wife has worked hard since the 1980's. We have not inherited our wealth and we put ourselves through college as well as our Sons. We owe nothing to anyone and are ready to retire.

I have worked very hard in dangerous and difficult jobs since the 1970's and have no complaints about it. We saved our money and invested well. We both have always done a lot of volunteer work as well as contributing a significant portion of our income to worthy charities.

There is no 'Man' keeping anyone down who has the drive and desire to work hard and make good decisions.

Redistribution of wealth by the government is BS and they are the 'Man'. The government is the only thing that will benefit from that kind of [censored].

To suggest that there hasn't been a plethora of local, state, and Federal legislation passed that benefits affluent/powerful people, or that hasn't been used by some to climb the scale of affluence is myopic bliss or outright dishonesty. That isn't bad - it was put in place to achieve an objective, which for the most part benefits everyone.

10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth ... not income... wealth. That is a logistical reality that needs to be monitored. As suggested previously redistribution of wealth flows back to those best positioned to capture money flowing through the economy. Not too unlike Monopoly, when one or two players own Park Place, Boardwalk, and a majority of the real estate, the game is nearing its end. At some point the rules need to be altered to establish a credit function - either a loan from the bank,or from one of the players having accumulated all of the assets, or the game ends.

In the greater context of what the primary objective is - a functioning society - we don't want this game to end. Therefore, monitoring liquidity of wealth and "adjusting" where necessary isn't a bad thing. All should benefit. That said, redistribution shouldn't unfairly "take" from those that have and "give" to those that don't. Like the legislative decisions taken which benefit the affluent, the same logic can be used to "redistribute". The mechanics of a well fucntioning society involves socialistic concepts ... which are distinctly different from "socialism".

I find it comical that after 20+ years of prospering from the sub-prime mortgage debacle, that most are opposed to giving any of it back. With very few exceptions we all profited greatly over what we would have without the sub-prime lending practices. It fueled income for the construction industry, appliance manufacturers, carpet companies, and all other real estate/building related businesses and employees. Entry level owners were able to trade up, thus floating the trade up boat for all. Equity ballooned, which funded college educations, new car purchases, home renovations, etc. Everyone in those industries fared better and spent their money which benefitted all other industries. We all fared better ... except those that were duped into sophisticated economic dependencies they didn't understand or that they outright chose to exploit. The biggest negative (IMO) was that we were all so flush with cash that we "gave it away" to foreign lands through our purchase decisions. Especially energy - we funded the war on terror against us. Stupid, huh?

Anyway, to make a big deal out of giving 5% back in the form of an expiring tax credit so the game can continue is silly. The money will flow back anyway. The other option is to increase M1 ... oh, guess that is being done too. :grin:

When you rob Peter to Pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Daddo [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

When you rob Peter to Pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

To carry this idiom one step further - "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, after Peter's been robbing Paul for most of his life, you can always count on Paul's vote"...to say what's happening now constitutes "robbing Peter" is absurd, but I guess it serves a purpose - hyperbole notwithstanding...

In my opinion, wealth is not determined by the amount in the account.

If you worked 40 years on the kind of jobs I did, and still had all your digits, you'd consider yourself lucky, not wealthy.

I consider diginity to be valuable. When I know for a fact that I am being exploited, I can not serve with dignity.

Work can be done by those who are willingly exploited,
but not the kind of work that pays enough to sustain life in our society.

Hence social programs such as WIC, public schools, medicare, etc.

One mistake I see many make is to think of themselves as having crossed some kind of imaginary thresh hold
which represents, and will provide, some kind of security. Retirement, debt free, old age, success, happily married...

I think its an illusion because there's always some one or thing out there scheming to suck the value out of
what you perceive to be solid.

Regardless of what you invest in, it can be de valued. Leaving you holding the bag.
Currency, gold, stock, bonds, soy beans. And, yes, even your marriage and family.

Just as sure and soon as you place a value on it, some one will try to take, or tax it.

Interesting view. I hold to the belief that individuals need challenge, not to be confused that with struggle. If you don't have a reason to get up in the morning and be challenged you start to die.
As far as unseen entities trying to suck out my lifeblood I tend not do dwell on the fears.

Michael Moore's - 'Capitalism - A love story' should illuminate some additional thought on this matter.

Definitely not unbiased, but Moore's point is very clear and unabashed. And if you're part of the "privileged class", then understandably you'd take issue with the message...

The trends have been very bad the past 20+ years. Now the top 1% of the population controls nearly 35% of the wealth. The next 19 percent control 50% of the wealth. That only leaves 20% of the wealth for the lower 80% of the population. The impact of this will be a lower standard of living for all but the wealthy. And it will get worse if efforts to further reduce taxes for the rich and cut programs that help people improve their lot in life continue. Corporations have had record profits and are sitting on hordes of cash so they don't need any more incentives, yet they are not expanding and are making every effort to undercut the workforce by attacking unions and fair salaries. I contend that the country will be a lot healthier if the the middle class is stronger and if poorer people have more opportunities to advance themselves.

Here is a link to some analysis of the distribution of wealth in America.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html