And then everyone was rich, wouldn't all those people who supported the distribution, hate themselves and then they would have to give their money away because they hate rich people?
Also, why is it that the rich people that support wealth redistribution have their monies in foreign accounts where it cannot be touched?
2007-01-20 06:24:23 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, once they became rich they would be against any further distributions.
2007-01-20 06:29:09 · answer #1 · answered by americanmalearlington 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we have to rid ourselves of the notion that wealth is always earned through hard work. If you were a single mom working two or three part-time minimum wage jobs to support three kids, you will never get wealthy despite the fact your workweek can exceed sixty hours.
People who chase a small ball through a big field get paid millions of dollars to do so. Is this REALLY deserved wealth? Paris Hilton was born into wealth. What heavy lifting did she do to deserve what she has?
Weath distribution is not intended to make everybody have the same, but is meant to reduce (not eliminate) the growing gap between the wealthiest citizens and poorest citizens of this country. People will still have incentive to earn more and create more wealth for themselves, but those who came into wealth through no effort of their own ... too bad.
2007-01-20 14:43:31 · answer #2 · answered by Angela B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The facts are that those who generate wealth become wealthy. Those who cannot manage their money never will become wealthier unless they learn how to manage their money.
A redistribution of wealth would be a loss of capital which would hurt most businesses except for the those like the liquor/beer and porn industries. Pornography is a huge business now, like gambling, and it enriches a very few at the expense of the many.
2007-01-20 14:39:29 · answer #3 · answered by Susan M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just remember, Marxism (and its concepts of wealth redistribution and social justice) is the opiate of greedy, stupid little people.
And they dance to the tune of the rich leftists who "know" what's best for them.
2007-01-20 14:38:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be socialistic communism. That's not what this country is. And as long as we have patriots, it will never be that.
A smart man once said "Democracy isn't the best form of government, until you compare it to all the rest."
2007-01-20 14:34:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋