An Economic question for Rich-Poor Gap?

Question

Should the U.S., a free economy, specialize in a new procedure that would make the rich have a financial ceiling, once the ceiling is reached, the funds contribute back into society, I.E. Myself, a poor college student who worries about 100 dollars between getting kicked out and living for another month? Shouldn't we have a program that flushes the money back into college students, health care, insurance (Cough-FEMA)?

Only mature responses.

(Additional information: 40hrs/week, 14-16 hr semesters, working towards a business degree, Mother has breast cancer, father just had circulation surgery, ages 55/60)

Answer 1

Well answer this, why would a rich person at the ceiling do anything at all to make more money if it meant that the whole amount would be turned over to the gov for redistribution. If, as seems likely, they stop investing or producing at that point then how can you be better off since there is nothing to transfer to you.
Your mistake is you think the world is a zero sum game. You must think that what the rich have has been taken from you. that is not the case in free market economies. You fail to remember that income is being generated from something, maybe work, maybe investment; and, that the reason it is being generated is because some has decided to incur a cost to earn it. Maybe spend time working maybe take a chance on investing. If the person will not receive a benefit then they won't incur the cost.

Answer 2

What you are basically asking for is a Socialistic society. I would think if there was a ceiling on "rich" pay, most people would work until they hit that ceiling and then stop. Why would I or anyone, want to work for free and give it to someone else?

Once those "rich" stopped at the ceiling, nothing else would be going back into the economy from them that could supports businesses, job growth, etc. Then you would be basically in the same place you are now except when you went to get a job, there would be less openings since the "rich" no longer put money back into growth, businesses, etc.

My wife and I have paid the majority of both our kids college because we managed our money our whole married life. Our kids paid the remainder. Not because we are rich. We do not have a large screen TV or many other items that tend to eat up any potential savings or investment money.

I am sure you will see how this works in business courses if you don't already know, so I'm a little surprised this suggestion be made by someone getting a businesses degree.

If there is a total re-distribution of wealth, then we will all be poor and miserable together ( except for the %5 of the people that runs things)

Answer 3

Gee I like that idea. I say, take no more than you need and share the rest. But those above my answer are thinking in old ways. Forgive there numbness. I wish we could get rid of the currency that brought us here in the first place. Dump it, and dump taxes too. (ok now I'm a terrorist and should be shot) oh well beat me daddy beat me). Our ansestors paid a heavy price so that you would not endure this sort of thing, AND the Education your paying for is made up of bull crap. I'd rather give the head honcho half that as a bribe for my degree. (ok that's cheating but so are they). Ok you still have to do what's right or all is lost. But in the mean time don't eat any tuna out of a tin can. brush you teeth and remove any shiny fillings. Oh and hug your familly till the cows come home. You have a mighty hard job in front of you. I hope you are ready to change, change and change again. Keep on top of what's going on. And find the loops that will provide for you and your familly. lol

Answer 4

Actually, if government make that so-called financial ceiling, we cant call it free economy. And even though there is a such a thing, problem is who and how it should be contributed to the society. For example, Japan has a very high tax rate like 80 percent for inheriting a wealth. And have a less Rich-Poor Gap. But still it does have a welfare and poverty problems. Scandinavian countries have a good welfare and stuffs but they are all rich so its not our case. :))So its not the matter of how to get the money from rich people. Its matter of how to distribute it. And also I think you cant demand such a program like flush money back thing since we haven`t contribute anything to society.

Answer 5

That would never happen, what incentive would the wealthy have to work for once the cap was reached? I think they need to stop raising taxes, pay off some of the national debt and begin to increase minimum wage, while putting a cap on inflation. People are taxed to death. Stop and think about this. Companys buy products. they are taxed. companys make new products out of the products they bought. When they sell the products they are taxed. Workers are taxed before they ever receive their paychecks. Consumers buy the products, they are taxed. How many times is the same product taxed? Who is making money? There is no exuse for people to be forced to live in poverty, or to be denied a good education because they can't afford it. The problem lies within a greedy government, not on wealthy buisness owners. There is no exuse for the amount of national debt America has and there is no excuse for the fact that our government stole our social security. Now they want us to pay for 401 k retirement plans, but I'll bet they have no intention of not taxing people for social security. People are taxed so hard they can't afford to live unless they were born into wealth and it is practically impossible to get ahead honestly today. Stop taxing people to death. That would solve a lot of problems.

Answer 6

Bad idea. That's forced redistribution of wealth, and it's a major step down the road toward socialism. One of the reasons the capitalist system works well is because it is based firmly around a core element of human nature -- self-interest. Sure, you have people like Paris Hilton who are born into wealth, but the system is set up for people to work harder, come up with new innovations or ideas, take risks, and reap the rewards that come from their efforts.

Let me give you an analogy: I'm assuming that you're a hard-working college student who studies, does his homework, and hands his assignments in on time. As a result, your GPA is high, right? Now let's say your roommate comes from wealthy parents and he likes to party on the weekends, so his GPA is significantly lower. Would you go to the Dean of Students and ask him/her to credit a full point of your GPA to your roommate? No, of course you wouldn't. You worked hard to get those good grades, and it's not fair to give part of your hard-earned GPA to someone who doesn't work as hard as you do. But that's exactly what you're advocating when you propose a financial ceiling. You're taking away from people who (for the most part) EARN their money and giving it to people who (for the most part) sit on their lazy butts and and EXPECT others to provide for their welfare.

See, the system is backwards. Our Federal Government and state governments were set up to provide for people who can't work because of some disability, and the welfare system was originally designed to help people who couldn't find work. It was NEVER intended to be the system of perpetual handouts that it is now. By putting a financial ceiling in place, you would continue to enable those who make no positive contribution to our society to simply sit around and do nothing except produce another generation of children who will spend their entire lives on welfare and will continue to demand something for nothing. Keep going far enough down that road and you get to the point where the government has complete control over the market and the wages of every worker (does that sound like the former Soviet Union to you? IT SHOULD).

Answer 7

so Utopian.. too Utopian..
just get rid of the nasty life players and you'll get by..
pray that they vanish in thin air..