What makes some people argue in the United States that there should be NO wealth

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   What makes some people argue in the United States that there should be NO wealthy classes & that
   
   everyone should have "INCOME EQUALITY"?  What makes the same people view wealthy people as morally bankrupt, even asserting that NO ONE has the right to be wealthy while other people are poor, refusing to realize that people are poor(in the United States) because of unwise, uneducated, even foolish life  & educational choices? Analytical & logical answers please.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 69

   Tusitala Tomposted 9 years ago

   It's been said that if all the wealth in a country were divided up so that everyone in it had an exactly equal share that within a few years the situation will have changed to what is was before the 'share out.'   We'd all be back to square one.
   
   The reason for this is plain.  Some people use their money wisely, others do not.   Those who value what money can do for them over time, invest.  They end up with more of it and the financial freedom which goes along with it.   That investment might come in the form of starting a business which provides a service - probably for those who are already wasting their share on consumer goods which will depreciate quickly, or wear out, or even be urinated out in a toilet.
   
   We've probably all met people who've come in for a 'windfall' of unexpected wealth, have lived like emperors for a couple of years and ended up broke.  And we've probably all met people who have diligently saved and bought wisely with their savings on things such as land, or houses or other property that perpetually gain in value.
   
   There is a built-in ego resentment of those who are discernibly better off than we think we are.   Sure there are rich crooks.  There are also even more poor crooks.
   
   Should everyone have income equality?  My view: They should have the right to CREATE for themselves income equality or better within the constraints of both morality and the laws of the land.   But this does not mean that all of us should have the same incomes over our whole lifetimes.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      WELL PUT, ++++++++!

      replyreport
3. 88

   lisavollrathposted 9 years ago

   Wow, I disagree with so much of this premise, I don't know where to start.
   
   "...people are poor (in the United States) because of unwise, uneducated, even foolish life & educational choices" assumes that poor people have choices. People born into poverty generally have no opportunities, and very few choices. It's very difficult to get a good education in a poor neighborhood, where resources are stretched thin, and there's little support from the community. Having taught in a poor Hispanic neighborhood, what I saw was parents working two or three menial jobs each, for below minimum wage. That left them little time to supervise the kids, help with homework, or ensure students left home in the morning with a good breakfast in their stomachs, and money in their pockets for lunch. Kids came to school hungry, tired and dirty. It's hard to get a good education when your stomach is empty, and you're falling asleep at your desk. It's harder still to understand why an education is necessary, when the adults around you have dropped out at a young age, and have jobs that don't require it. There are no examples of what it's like not to be poor, so poor and uneducated becomes your role model. It's a vicious circle, and one that's not easily broken. To say people are poor because they've made bad choices implies they actually have choices. They don't. If they did, why on earth would they choose endless generations of poverty?
   
   I don't know that anyone argues no one has the right to be wealthy, but I do think, as members of a society, that we have an obligation to help those who are struggling. If I own a corporation that makes billions in profits, I have an obligation to ensure I'm not making it on the backs of workers who are unable to scrape together even the most meager of livings on what my company pays them. If workers are the first to have hours cut, or lose their jobs when a company does poorly, shouldn't they be the first to share in its success? If I have more than I will ever need in this life, shouldn't I, as a human being, want to ensure my workers aren't poor, uninsured, and living in squalor?
   
   It's not income equality. It's making sure that as a society, we aren't creating an oligarchy, with the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. It's taking care of our fellow citizens, for the good of all of us. When everyone is educated, fed, and cared for when they're sick, we all benefit. Why is that so hard to understand?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      RLWalker LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I cannot add or subtract from this answer. Well said.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Michaela Osieckiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Best response, hands down.

      replyreport
4. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago

   Billionaires in the US are like the Royal Family, except they are allowed to create fortunes through the Internal Revenue Code. This code is not useful to the average wage earner.
   
   There is no reason to divide the wealth of the country equally, but at the same time wealth shouldn't be protected by bad laws that only apply to one class.
   
   At the same time, there should be no tax brackets and everyone should tithe the same percentage. In the current system there is a tacit discrimination on the wealthy. As mentioned the higher tax brackets are avoided by the wealthy using the IRC.
   
   As long as we have the current federal income tax system, with its internal revenue code, the billionaires will prosper, and the middle class will continue to shrink.

   replyreport