So-called 47%..
@flowerchilde (12529)
United States
September 24, 2012 3:03pm CST
If the far left is successful in fulfilling their vision, of taking from the wealthy achievers and redistributing it, do we really think they will give it to the so called 47%? To world standards, the 47% are wealthy! Do we think the politicians will surrender any of their wealth? Isn't that a bit naive? The bible say the politicians (kings) will devour and raze captitalism - book of revelation 17:12,13,16. Will this make the world a better place?
5 people like this
9 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
25 Sep 12
The biggest problem with their theory on redistribution and social equality is that it's been tried before and failed utterly. The reason that these endeavours fail is quite simply that humans are involved, the state is involved as the instrument of redistribution and all you end up with is a new class system of privilege that is based on your position in the state.
If people don't bother to read history, then they will fall for anything.
3 people like this
Doesn't look like it...
@laglen (19759)
• United States
25 Sep 12
A few of your posters really hit the nail on the head. Redistribution of wealth DOES NOT WORK.
watch this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZQvSCGaJI
to put in simplest terms, yes you did build that and deserve to reap the benefits.
Look at all of the money put into the "war on poverty". Are any of those people better off? How many that get welfare will pull themselves out unless the government forces them off.
It just doesnt work. There are people that can NOT earn a living due to illness etc. But there really aren't that many.
I bartend in a club. I had a lady the other day ask for a job. I know this woman get 100% disability. But she will bartend for no hourly wage just tips. If she can bartend long shifts, how is she 100% disabled. By the way, your tax money pays for her booze and gambling. She will easily drop a couple hundred dollars a day on gambling.
By the way, even though she will work for free, we will not hire somebody that in effect is already stealing from us.
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
26 Sep 12
Anyone who thinks rich leftist politicians don't want to redistribute wealth to the poor should just take a look at all the poor peoples' lifestyles for the last 4 years. The formerly poor 47% who voted for Obama in the last election are positively rolling in dough now! Just go visit their huge mansions with in ground swimming pools. Oh wait, those are people who actually work for a living and who for years have worked hard to build their incomes to afford such things, not part of the 47%.
2 people like this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
9 Oct 12
That was a very good way of putting it!
1 person likes this
@stk40m (1118)
• Koeln, Germany
24 Sep 12
rest assured, nothing will change because they don't even think of a change. It's been like that for the past few thousand years. So why should they change their minds now? The only way to get rid of the sh*t is to get rid of the tool that makes it possible for them to accumulate wealth. Money. People would have to refuse to pay taxes, not accept money anymore, don't support them in any way and build a new society. But how much likely is that? I don't know. And they probably will do everything to avoid that.
Cheers
1 person likes this
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
24 Sep 12
By the time we all lose our jobs we won't even have to refuse to pay taxes, we just won't have anything to pay them on.
@stk40m (1118)
• Koeln, Germany
24 Sep 12
nah, that won't happen either. they need people who do the work for them ;-) So it's more likely they'll increase taxes so people will work more to be able to pay them. The point is, people realize that and that turns out a problem for all...
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
24 Sep 12
The 10 kings are those that receive power from the beasts and would be called leaders or tyrants. It would not be the local alderman, governor, or prime minister, but more like the king or a dictator of a large country or several countries. That would mean like the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. It could also mean the Communist empire and the Nazi empire who although were not called empires, because in a sense that they took over several countries would in the olden times be called empires.
The far left think that by taking the wealth away from the so called rich would not make much of a change. In fact, the wealth would be changed from one group to another. So if the group that is rich is now poor, and the group that is poor is now rich without doing any harder work but just by theft and greed, would we be better off? No way.
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
25 Sep 12
I have to wonder too if the redistributed money would pass through the hands of country's dictators, like much that is given now does!
- I find myself thinking the 10 kings which rule one hour with the world beast(body) will be ten divisions, which goes along with the "ten toes" in Nebuchanezzar's vision in his dream of a statue of world empires, which Daniel told the meaning of from God.
1 person likes this
@Sourceseeker (1197)
• United States
24 Sep 12
The trouble with the argument has given with taking the wealth of those who make over two hundred fifty ythousand and redistributing it is it so9unds like a permanent process. Like we are creating a new standtard or wave.
The real issue is we need money to help America recover the debt and that should not take forever. This should be a temporary fix but the president is not saying that and he should.
1 person likes this
@lawdude (237)
• United States
25 Sep 12
The whole wealth redistribution issue is false and ridiculous.
The government has always redistributed wealth whether through the tax code - e.g, earned income credit; deductions for home mortgages, state & local taxes; numerous other tax credits and deductions that apply to individuals, businesses, and corporations; special treatment for capital gains; increases or decreases in marginal tax rates - or through government spending - e.g., education, housing; defense and military; subsidies to agriculture, oil companies, and other industries; taxpayer bailouts of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s and the investment and commercial banks in 2007-2009; bailout of the auto companies, etc., etc., etc.
There is no 47%. Instead, 100% of the U.S. populace, which means every one of us - whether poor, middle class, or wealthy - depend on the benificence of the federal government through its spending and tax policies for our prosperity and well-being.
Nationally, there is no parity between taxes and spending per capita. For example, Colorado receives 81 cents per capita for every dollar per capita paid in taxes while Mississippi receives $2.02 per capita for every dollar per capita paid in taxes. That is tantamount to redistribution. The socialist redistribution argument is laughable when examined.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
25 Sep 12
You know, the media knows very well that capital gains taxes are different than income taxes, in that income which was paid taxes on is invested in our american companies which makes more jobs. Discouraging investment in our companies during a strong recession simply makes more recession. If you distribute wealth more equally among ambitious go-getters and slackers, what is bound to happen?
- I agree however that big companies should not get tax breaks and subsidies for wining and dining our politicians, and supporting their campaigns.
@crossbones27 (49703)
• Mojave, California
25 Sep 12
Thank you for making that point. I do not understand why people cannot figure out every government policy redistributes the wealth in some way. Some policies work better than others. What people need to pay attention to is if these policies are designed to help out our country as a whole, or just a select few groups.
They need to understand that if you close the tax deductions for mortgages and policies that help middle class to low income people, so you can give more tax breaks to people who are financially well off that probably don't need them. Then that hurts the country as a whole. That's because now that's less money these people have to spend on things that help the economy overall. Not to mention some people that are barely getting by, may not be able to afford their mortgages because they took these types of policies away from these people. Then foreclosures go up and banks become less stable and the stock market takes a hit. Which also means less money for 401k accounts. Businesses now can't get loans they need to stay in business. All because they want to take money from the people who can't really afford it and give it to the people who can.
The better off the economy is for everyone, the more money people of wealth are going to make. So I do not get why certain people are demonizing half the country. People need to look at it this way If you write off half the country. That is half of the potential income everyone on the top half just lost because now these people do not make enough to buy anything. So this type of thinking is doing the country a huge disservice. I wish some of our politicians would make the point you just did lawdude.
