Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I suspect you are saying that you object to any instance of the majority using their superior voting numbers to legislate the redistribution of wealth away from the few who own most of it, into the control of everyone else....even if the holding of all assets in the country...now in excess of 70 percent by the top ten percent...were to rise to their holding 90 percent of all of the wealth.
|
Correct. I am against government redistributing wealth. I think the role of government should be to provide for the common good. Legalized robbery is still robbery, in my opinion. I would not want to live in a country where the seizing of property to give to others was a common practice.
Quote:
|
You do not recognize, as a negative for the majority, the power and influence that the huge wealth advantage buys the wealthy elite. You advocate for a political system that does not "interfere" with wealth accumulation, even if it results in poverty and subsistence living for the vast majority.
|
That is not true in this country. People in this country enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Quote:
If the wealthiest end up with 90 percent of the wealth...do you think that they would be positioned to pay higher or lower wages to laborers than they currently pay? Do you think that they did not "interfere" with, what would have been a predictable process of majority rule...with the priorities of the majority routinely implemented via legislation....by buying the votes of the peoples' representatives....to block legislation that the wealthy perceived as negatively impacting their further wealth accumulation, or preservation?
Our country is skewed now to an extreme where more than 70 percent of all assets are controlled by ten percent of the residents..... wealth distribution here is much closer to that occurring today in Mexico or in Venezuela, than in Denmark or Sweden..... Do you think that this is so, because of non-intervention by government....in the US and Mexico, compared to, in Denmark or Sweden?
Can you consider that the distribution of wealth here is mitigated by the wealthy blocking the political influence of the majority, as it is in Mexico....using the government to create conditions that maximize the profits and income of a few who pay to make the government work for them.... whereas the majority in Denmark and Sweden have summoned the political power of their numerical majority to make their governments responsive to their priorities, to the detriment of their wealthiest class?
|
I don't see what you see. I see opportunities for all regardless of circumstance. I think most wealthy people became wealthy because they added value to something, I think their wealth was generated because they added greater value to society. For example Bill Gates and Microsoft - regardless of what you think about Windows I think the net value to society is many times greater than his wealth, he is giving a lot of his wealth away, many are in the top 10% because of his company, and he and his company have paid billions and billions in taxes. I have no problem with Gates and his wealth.
I think most poor adults are poor because of choices they have made. Sure some people are true victims of circumstance but not most. Also experience has shown that it is never too late in this country for a person to get on the right track, unless they are serving life in prison or soemthing like that.