If the rich keep manipulating until they have 95% of the wealth and the rest of us were struggling would you?

Question

support taking the wealth from them through socialist programs.

The top 1% own 40% of the wealth in our country

because you are interconnected to everyone in this culture and owe them a debt for the rights to make money on their backs.

Answer 1

They have almost that much already, but I think that they want all of it. The truth is that God made enough for everyone to have what they need, and everything belongs to everyone. God did not intend for some to hoard and others to starve. We are truly and literally all one, and whatever you do for the least of us, you also do for yourself. Those who hoard and exploit, and think everyone has to fend for themselves, simply do not understand how the universe really works.

I am sorry, xialou1, but the top 1% actually own and control a great deal more than 40% *sm*

Answer 2

Depends on what you consider socilist programs. In the greater sense, yes. The main problem is predatory capitalism. We need a proper pyramid for a healthy economy. Mostly, we need to fix the corruption that led to this straocities. Besides, if the wealth is distributed in such a lopsided fashion, it no longer becomes capitalism and would probably be more akin to feadalism


We need to also becareful what programs we instituted. I watch the Democratic party institute a "Socialistic" progtam, and found it further divides the rich and the poor. They give large amount of programs to the poor, but at the expense of taxing the middle class. What it does is to improve the fate of the poor marginally, but increase the number of the poor by reducing the middle class. Lot of the socialist programs are actually meant to help the rich get richer. In Mexico, they use governmetn money to build baseball stadiums for the people. What it really doeas is to redirect money into the hands of the construction companies.

Answer 3

I live in Canada where the wealth is not so concentrated. Your minimum wage is medieval, we have an $8.00 minimum wage here. Businesses survive and so does our economy, despite the fact that people who do the work get paid for it. We also allow that everyone is allowed to be healthy enough to pay taxes.

No I don't believe that the money should all be allowed to float to the top 1%. They are the true parasites on an economy. They contribute as little as possible and whine if anyone suggests closing their tax loopholes. (sound of violins)

The answers that are showing up here are examples of evolutionary theory in action. The people who have want more and in many cases the ruthlessness to get more are the ones who survive.

Answer 4

It's true that the 80% of the wealth in America is held by 20%, but the fact is, that it's the 20% that provide jobs for the rest of us.

Only a socialist would call that "manipulation". If capitalism offends you, you might want to move to Cuba. However, I think your standard of living may go down.

By the way, I'm in the 80% group, yet I live better that 95% of the rest of the world. Isn't America great!

Answer 5

Probably not. I want to enjoy the little things. And I think most people feel that life is a struggle. People choose to endure "struggle," rather than challenge the forces that control things.
Levelers such as imminent starvation are needed to galvanize the masses to desperate actions. 95% of wealth, even in the hands of a small minority, is intimidating, enough at least to prevent civil war. Also, remember that many countries don't "own" even close to 100% of their wealth; so increased globalization of makes it difficult to assess who is holding the "rest of us" down.
It takes Hitler level charisma to motivate people who are "only" struggling to take drastic measures. Even Hitler spent time in prison before he had enough manpower to back him. Mao almost lost his life before he relized following Marx would not work in China's city-based production sites.
However, I do support isolationism; America needs to survive, and I think we have the resourses to be a self sufficient state. We need to care about one another by giving everyone a chance; we need to stop outsoursing and accept a lower profit margin. We need to be braver.

Answer 6

No not mandatory. But I'll explain the fact that with current trend, the gap between rich and poor is widening and it would cause the spending power of the poor and middle class to fall, therefore devaluing money?!
I recommend voluntary contribution of 20% toward a fund for solving the problems, that cause poverty.
Rising poverty is a problem, which will effect us all.

Best Regards.

Answer 7

I love some of the answers you get to these questions...lol. Look at 'Kat's' solution...all you have to do is 'manipulate' the system to your advantage! That's all you have to do! All 300 million of us could squeeze into that upper 5 percentile if we just tried hard enough! Why didn't you think of that?! Funny how so many people are willing to play along in a rigged card game.

Answer 8

The rich probably pay your bills. I would stop voting for democrats that fill you with ideas that don't hurt rich people. They couldn't care less about what the income tax is. Their wealth isn't affected one bit and it is just the means they (democrats) keep you dependent on them. The rich just give them money to get tax loopholes so they don't pay anything. You are a sucker to the class warfare tactics that is totally backwards in reality.

Answer 9

What do you mean by rich? There are a lot of people that are well off and made something in their life so far instead of complaining. My family is really well off, so do you want to take money from me? I live in a good area and where good clothes, so that makes me rich, because my family is able to WORK to get that money because we have a surgeon and a esthetician in my family. Stop complaining and work to get your own money. A lot of people earn what they have (not Paris!) And I donate to charity!

And don't forget communism. My entire family is from Russia. My Grandma grew up i communism and my mom went like that with her childhood. It even took a while for it to get back up with the rest of the world. That is why she found a way to take me and her to America when I was only five and she was 23.

Answer 10

I don't generally support socialism, but if that is the only alternative to such total concentration of wealth then I'm for it.

FDR's 'New Deal' was socialism. It was needed because of an emergency created by capitalist greed. And it helped a lot of people!