socialism doesn't seem to be balanced

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
5
81
Why do the liberals seem to think that it's the "responsibility" of the wealthy to give up some of their wealth to help even out the distribution of economic means? apparently, It's the social responsibility of the rich to give back to the society which allows them to be succesful. On the other side of the coin, why is it not the Responsibility of those at the bottom of the system to not be a burden on society? Why is there no pressure to be self-sustaining. Why are they being rewarded for their incompetance and unwillingness to improve not only themselves but our society? Tell me what incentive is there to contribute when you're on the receiving end? None.

Socialism...yay.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Why do the liberals seem to think that it's the "responsibility" of the wealthy to give up some of their wealth to help even out the distribution of economic means? apparently, It's the social responsibility of the rich to give back to the society which allows them to be succesful. On the other side of the coin, why is it not the Responsibility of those at the bottom of the system to not be a burden on society? Why is there no pressure to be self-sustaining. Why are they being rewarded for their incompetance and unwillingness to improve not only themselves but our society? Tell me what incentive is there to contribute when you're on the receiving end? None.

Socialism...yay.

Presumably because the system allowed them to get wealthy and live a comfortable life? It certainly wasn't 100% attributable to the individual.

On the lower end, you have an obvious incentive to get better, since quality of life goes up income to a point. You mean to tell me people in poverty love staying in poverty?
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Why do the liberals seem to think that it's the "responsibility" of the wealthy to give up some of their wealth to help even out the distribution of economic means? apparently, It's the social responsibility of the rich to give back to the society which allows them to be succesful. On the other side of the coin, why is it not the Responsibility of those at the bottom of the system to not be a burden on society? Why is there no pressure to be self-sustaining. Why are they being rewarded for their incompetance and unwillingness to improve not only themselves but our society? Tell me what incentive is there to contribute when you're on the receiving end? None.

Socialism...yay.

But having 1% of the poplulation own 38% of the wealth is balanced?
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
5
81
Presumably because the system allowed them to get wealthy and live a comfortable life? It certainly wasn't 100% attributable to the individual.

On the lower end, you have an obvious incentive to get better, since quality of life goes up income to a point. You mean to tell me people in poverty love staying in poverty?

someone posted an article a while back that put forth the proposition that if they can't attain a certain level of income, then the effort required is disproportionate to the return.... many see that level of effort as too hard and therefore don't even try, after all it's easier to sit at home and do nothing right?

But having 1% of the poplulation own 38% of the wealth is balanced?

what typically happens when someone who was living in poverty wins the lotto? the money gets blown and they end up in the same situation as before. yes, lets give them more money to spend on drugs....i'm sure that will help the economy.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,824
6,372
126
someone posted an article a while back that put forth the proposition that if they can't attain a certain level of income, then the effort required is disproportionate to the return.... many see that level of effort as too hard and therefore don't even try, after all it's easier to sit at home and do nothing right?



what typically happens when someone who was living in poverty wins the lotto? the money gets blown and they end up in the same situation as before. yes, lets give them more money to spend on drugs....i'm sure that will help the economy.

Fail.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
But having 1% of the poplulation own 38% of the wealth is balanced?
Given that a majority of Americans live their lives with the sole goal of spending all the money they have (often before they earn it) thereby guaranteeing they acquire zero wealth... maybe.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I think anyone who doesn't believe in utopia recognizes that if merely for the sake of social cohesion and stability, some redistribution from the rich to the poor (or the smart to the stupid, or useful to the useless, if you care to frame it in that manner) is wise. In a way the process resembles being extorted at the threat of having your gates stormed and your throat slit, but it's wise all the same.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Your suggestion provides no means to "buy" votes or con the masses into giving politicians the power to subjugate them.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
someone posted an article a while back that put forth the proposition that if they can't attain a certain level of income, then the effort required is disproportionate to the return.... many see that level of effort as too hard and therefore don't even try, after all it's easier to sit at home and do nothing right?



what typically happens when someone who was living in poverty wins the lotto? the money gets blown and they end up in the same situation as before. yes, lets give them more money to spend on drugs....i'm sure that will help the economy.

Why can't you take the responsibility to not fall for right-wing ideology full of lies?

You remind me of slavery proponents who said, 'slavery is a good thing, look at them, release them into the public and stop providing shelter and food and they'll starve' - nevermind how slaves were crippled by centuries of slavery, with it illegal to even make teach them literacy, and by a century of racist restrictions even after that.

Funny how many African Americans do great on anything like an equal footing - our current President just one example - but people still fail to connect any ongoing problems with ongoing legacy effects of that long history of racism leaving people in poverty, segregated by economics and long histories of legal segregation, if not the law today.

The liberal recognizes that investing in the citizens increases prosperity; the right-winger has ignorance telling only one simple thing, 'cut all spending', leading to societal poverty.

So many right-wing areas are 'backwards', filled with poverty, and they call it success.

That's just in our crazy country nutty enough to have places to try these things, the rest of the advanced world knows better, they have safety nets, healthcare, etc.

And to show for it, we have the highest incarceration in the world (eat our dust, China), bad problems with drugs, education, and so on - the right: cut spending, cut spending.

It's not that we don't need to cut spending - we do, but the right has the game figured out, with 'starve the beast' - keep the corrupt spending, force cuts for the middle class.

The Middle Class's *private* debt alone - which is far bigger than the government debt - has propped up that 1%, spending money they don't have for profits for the owners.

But ignoramuses don't get the 'class war' going on. Divide the citizens, make the middle class hate the poor while raping them all.

What's your logic - poor people can't cope with the lottery win, so make them all poor with policies for the rich? Pathetic.

Save234
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
5
81
I think anyone who doesn't believe in utopia recognizes that if merely for the sake of social cohesion and stability, some redistribution from the rich to the poor (or the smart to the stupid, or useful to the useless, if you care to frame it in that manner) is wise. In a way the process resembles being extorted at the threat of having your gates stormed and your throat slit, but it's wise all the same.

only if the poor feel entitled to have what you've acquired for themselves
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I ran across these somewhere and saved them. I don't know who to attribute them to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Given that a majority of Americans live their lives with the sole goal of spending all the money they have (often before they earn it) thereby guaranteeing they acquire zero wealth... maybe.

Also given the fact that a majority of Americans are content with simply taking a job and earning a paycheck. Whereas the people that accumulate lots of wealth through their life bust ass and take risks.

and like nonlnear was saying.... people also spend $45,000 on a car that is worth $9,000 when they sell it to buy another $45,000 car.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
I love how the argument is that the poor don't work and are a burden on society. Then that the rich all are hard workers and earned there wealth based on merits, and hard work. That is so false it's not even funny. When I say rich I am talking about the people making well over a million a year. Where there performance and work no longer matter, they will continue to make huge sums of money. Then the poor are those making less than lets say 50k a year.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Plus if you give money to the poor/middle class it will be spent. Unlike when you give it to the rich where they aren't spending much of there money to begin with, so why would giving them more have an effect?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I love how the argument is that the poor don't work and are a burden on society. Then that the rich all are hard workers and earned there wealth based on merits, and hard work. That is so false it's not even funny. When I say rich I am talking about the people making well over a million a year. Where there performance and work no longer matter, they will continue to make huge sums of money. Then the poor are those making less than lets say 50k a year.

You are right in many cases. Lawyers and politicians more often than not become enormously wealthy not by producing wealth, but by leeching it from others. E.g. John Edwards, the Kennedy's, the Clintons, etc.

Most people find the image of the idea of top-hat & monocle evil rich highly objectionable, but it is THESE leeches that are the true bane of society. The fact that these corrupt people deflect public anger away from themselves by blaming productive rich people is what offends me the most.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Plus if you give money to the poor/middle class it will be spent. Unlike when you give it to the rich where they aren't spending much of there money to begin with, so why would giving them more have an effect?


What do you think they do with their money, stick it in a passport savings account or under their mattress? Uh, no, they invest it. That invested money is invested again and finally used for capital by someone else. Capital creates/sustains jobs.