The top 5% of wealthy households in this country control 59% of the wealth (~$18 trillion). If the government confiscated half of their wealth, and redistributed it evenly to the poorest 95% of American households, each household would receive approximately $200,000. Then nobody would be poor, right?
Assuming the above situation, comment on the following:
Economically, what is wrong with this solution to poverty?
Morally, what is wrong with this solution to poverty?
Speculatively, how do you foresee the 'wealth gap' 25 years after the hypothetical "Great Redistribution"? In other words, after every family was provided a more than adequate chance at prosperity, would poverty exist 25 years hence?
2007-08-28
07:03:41
·
28 answers
·
asked by
Time to Shrug, Atlas
6
in
Politics