Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

[dblack]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

 

[rightwinger]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth



.

 

[peach174]

How do we redistribute wealth?

First off, we end the supply side measures we have been using for 30 years. They did not result in more jobs and nothing trickled down. Return upper tax rates to 1980 levels

Second....empower the middle class. Subsidize healthcare and education to levels they were at 30 years ago

To empower the middle class we need growth & jobs.
The more taxes on the wealthy is why they move.
When that happens the less the government gets in revenue.
France did this and they lost a lot of taxes because of that same liberal ideological move.

It is also not true that they don't pay their taxes. They do.
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

 

[RDD_1210]

How do we redistribute wealth?

First off, we end the supply side measures we have been using for 30 years. They did not result in more jobs and nothing trickled down. Return upper tax rates to 1980 levels

Second....empower the middle class. Subsidize healthcare and education to levels they were at 30 years ago

To empower the middle class we need growth & jobs.
The more taxes on the wealthy is why they move.
When that happens the less the government gets in revenue.
France did this and they lost a lot of taxes because of that same liberal ideological move.

It is also not true that they don't pay their taxes. They do.
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

 

[rightwinger]

To empower the middle class we need growth & jobs.
The more taxes on the wealthy is why they move.
When that happens the less the government gets in revenue.
France did this and they lost a lot of taxes because of that same liberal ideological move.

It is also not true that they don't pay their taxes. They do.
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

They are making a fortune in those half a percent savings accounts

 

[RDD_1210]

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

They are making a fortune in those half a percent savings accounts

Set it, and forget it!

Now you too can be rich.

 

[peach174]

To empower the middle class we need growth & jobs.
The more taxes on the wealthy is why they move.
When that happens the less the government gets in revenue.
France did this and they lost a lot of taxes because of that same liberal ideological move.

It is also not true that they don't pay their taxes. They do.
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

NO through the stock markets.

I never mentioned banks and CD's.

 

[RDD_1210]

We have had economic growth.......more jobs and higher wages were not a result
More wealth for the 1 percent was

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

NO through the stock markets.

I never mentioned banks and CD's.

But you said "yes they get wealthier because they are not investing"

So which is it? They are investing or they are?

 

[Political Junky]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

Your quotation marks are misplaced. Bernie never said "redistribute wealth".

 

[peach174]

Very weak growth.
When the wealthy sits on their wealth during depressions and recessions, yes they get wealthier because they are not investing and spending.

LOL you think the rich get richer by doing nothing?

I'd love to know where you learned about economics.

I never said they do nothing.
I said they sit on it.
High School and College is where I learned my economics.
Yes they get richer buy sitting on their wealth in Stocks, bonds. It grows interest rather than spending their money on housing, land and buildings.

Dems who use this wealthy crap are counting on the many voters out there that really knows nothing about how it really works.

hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the rich get richer through interest? Oh this is good, tell me more please.

NO through the stock markets.

I never mentioned banks and CD's.

But you said "yes they get wealthier because they are not investing"

So which is it? They are investing or they are?

Investing means buying property and other things. Yes they continue to do so but not in big amounts like when the economy is healthy.
Most keep their money in the stock market and they buy very little property during deep recessions.

 

[jillian]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.


*snip*."

here's a hint for you. it's about stopping the redistribution of wealth that has been done on behalf of the top .01%.

funny how that doesn't offend wingers.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Bernie is a classic live in mom's basement economic illiterate.

what wealth? does Bernie actually believe that there are 100 billionaires in all of 57 states?

To Bernie anyone with a job and a savings account is rich

right, anyone with over 1000.00 in total bank accounts are too rich and they are all racists!!!

 

[oreo]

Bernie Sanders's economic equality can only be achieved if the tax rate he proposes for his hated billionaires (90%) also applies to the non-billionaires.

For historical example Google "Soviet Union" or "Venezuela" or "Cuba".

How about Greece
Greece
Greek Economy Faces Total Collapse As Doctors Flee, Retail Sales Plunge 70% | Zero Hedge

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

Bernie Sanders didn't earn his first paycheck until he was 40 YEARS OLD. He's a LOOSER that goes way back.
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Skull Pilot]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

 

[Political Junky]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

Stashing $Trillions offshore, tax free, while many are destitute and our infrastructure is crumbling is OK with you?

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like the thread has been hijacked as usual, into "It's Republicans fault!" and "It's Democrats fault!".

Back to the subject:

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

I actually see it differently. In a free market, wealth IS distributed, and is constantly being distributed, by the decisions of millions of individual consumers and investors. When Bernie says government should redistribute wealth, he's essentially saying "you're not doing it right" to the American public.

Actually, Bernie is saying the Government shouldn't continue polices that only enrich the wealthy

Agree?

It depends on the policy

If the policy is letting everyone keep more of their own money then yes and why would you have a problem with that anyway?

That's the way it works isn't it?

You wave a hundred dollar bill in front of a poor person and use it to justify billions going to the wealthy

 

[dblack]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth
.

I see the difference. It's just not relevant. Unless that wealth has been gained via fraud or coercion, then it was distributed by people voluntarily - they channeled their money to the people doing what they valued most. If it's your contention that some wealth has been accumulated through corruption, I completely agree and we should remedy that.

But, if I read you right, that's not really what you're after. You want to change the existing distribution of wealth, even if it was all voluntarily collected. You want to reverse the decision of "We the People", and supplant it with mandates from government.

 

[rightwinger]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth
.

I see the difference. It's just not relevant. Unless that wealth has been gained via fraud or coercion, then it was distributed by people voluntarily - they channeled their money to the people doing what they valued most. If it's your contention that some wealth has been accumulated through corruption, I completely agree and we should remedy that.

But, if I read you right, that's not really what you're after. You want to change the existing distribution of wealth, even if it was all voluntarily collected. You want to reverse the decision of "We the People", and supplant it with mandates from government.

Golden Rule......He who has the gold, makes the rules

 

[dblack]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth
.

I see the difference. It's just not relevant. Unless that wealth has been gained via fraud or coercion, then it was distributed by people voluntarily - they channeled their money to the people doing what they valued most. If it's your contention that some wealth has been accumulated through corruption, I completely agree and we should remedy that.

But, if I read you right, that's not really what you're after. You want to change the existing distribution of wealth, even if it was all voluntarily collected. You want to reverse the decision of "We the People", and supplant it with mandates from government.

Golden Rule......He who has the gold, makes the rules

What does that mean to you? How does it apply to my comments?

 

[rightwinger]

How should we redistribute the wealth?

Each of us should decide how to redistribute our own wealth, as we see fit.

Hence you miss the difference between existing wealth and access to future wealth
.

I see the difference. It's just not relevant. Unless that wealth has been gained via fraud or coercion, then it was distributed by people voluntarily - they channeled their money to the people doing what they valued most. If it's your contention that some wealth has been accumulated through corruption, I completely agree and we should remedy that.

But, if I read you right, that's not really what you're after. You want to change the existing distribution of wealth, even if it was all voluntarily collected. You want to reverse the decision of "We the People", and supplant it with mandates from government.

Golden Rule......He who has the gold, makes the rules

What does that mean to you? How does it apply to my comments?

Think about it and get back to me