My Wealth Redistribution Solution

You liberals that demand the redistribution of wealth are going about it wrong. Here's a much simpler solution. Start by passing legislation that requires that the wealthy can only bequeath their fortunes to their offspring. No charities of foundations or wives or anything else..just to their children, or if they don't have any, then some other rich guys kids, or their own nieces and nephews. Once that's done, pass legislation making it a crime for the poor and less fortunate to procreate. Within a generation the poor and less fortunate will die out, leaving only the new generation of heirs and trust fund beneficiaries. The wealth will be redistributed. No harm, no foul. The need for those unfunded charities and foundations will have disappeared because the new generation of privileged offspring will have no need for them. Poverty will become a 'thing of the past'. A word that will have no meaning and will be removed from dictionaries. Yes, there would be a sacrifice to be endured. The poor won't be able to birth the poor. But until they fade away, they can help raise the children of the wealthy, thus have meaning in their life.

 

Wealth redistribution means all the welfare cheats get a job, no matter what it pays!!!!! That way they will quit living off the middle class tax money.

 

Either it's their property, or it's not. Passing it onto their kids or relatives is merely an extension of that property right.

ie: get your grubby hands off my money!

I somehow doubt that.

But I'd be willing to look at your costings.

 

Ah, but that's a 'conservative' solution. Realistically, we know that welfare cheats will never stop 'cheating welfare' We know that they will never quit living off the middle class and the rich. My solution is an end run around the problem. Eliminate them, period, end of story. Bye-bye, Seeya.

 

Seems you guys didnt think this through very well.

If nobody is poor, who is going to flip your burgers? Who will wash your car? Who will stock Walmart? Who will watch Nascar? Ok the last one is a joke lol

But really, if there are no poor people rich people wouldnt have anybody to work for them, who is going to work in the dirty factories? Sure as hell not going to be rich people, they dont like to work they like to have others work for them, which is why they call themselves "Job creators" not "workers" lol.

 

Its very simple, you can work 8 hours a day if you are making minimum wage depending on where you live there is a good chance you need welfare to get by, and just because they were born poor is no valid excuse for them not to have any children and be happy just like anybody else, so working 8 hours a day with minimum wage and two kids you still likely need welfare simply because corporations refuse to pay you a living wage so the middle class subsidizes the corporations and helps pay the living wage.

Blame poor people all you want, most are very hard workers and are very unlikely to vote for bastards who sit on their fat ass because they were born rich while calling everyone who wasnt "lazy leechers". So again, go ahead and keep blaming poor people you are just throwing their votes to the Democratic party so im serious, keep talking this crap about the hardworking poor, you are only digging your own grave. If it gets bad enough, dont think they wont throw you in that grave as they have done in the past, hence my signature.

 

But as the generations went on you would end up with the sons of the sons of the sons of the wealth creators running everything, and they would probably be an in bred useless bunch of retards. Just like the establishment in the UK!

 

We'd all be rich. There'd be no need for Walmart. We could afford to pay more for 'stuff'. If your car gets dirty, you buy a new clean one (you're rich) Flipping burgers would become a lost art. The rich don't eat fast food. No need to (they're rich).

 

Who will make the new cars?

Its obvious you are forgetting the only reason rich people are rich is because they have poor people working for them in large numbers, if no one is working for you where do you make your money?

 

Poor people may work hard but that is not the problem. The problem is that they have some serious decision making problems. Such as in the example above, why in the world are you having two kids if you know you are going to need welfare to support them and only have a minimum wage job?

That is not making a good decision. You should be going to college and trying to improve yourself not popping out babies. Also, the more that people like this have the more they will spend as it is doubtful they have learned the skills of budgeting or saving yet so all you do by increasing their pay is allow them more opportunity to make even further bad decisions. How many rich people are defaulting on credit cards or loans?

Not many.

It is the poor who suddenly get more money then end up blowing it because they do not understand the basic concepts of finances. Thinking that simply giving people more money will fix the problem of poverty is like trying to fill a pail with water when it has a hole in the bottom, the more you put in the more that simply drains out.

You need to fix that hole first.

 

It just baffles me that most which includes many on this forum don't have any clue what so ever on the concept of money and wealth

I will keep it simple
money isn't wealth it is just a representation of it
Wealth is created and it is infinite in its creation it isn't finite. it doesn't need to be redistributed. there is no one pie that needs to be distributed
So instead of trying to concoct schemes to take from the wealthy and give to the poor why don't we work on making it so the poor can create their own wealth
Wealth inequality is just hollow rhetoric and propaganda that its only purpose is to create class envy and hate to divide and separate for political purposes

 

Maybe because they want to live a normal human life like every (*)(*)(*)(*)ing body else? Having kids is part of human life, they shouldnt have to wait till they are 50 years old and can safely afford it. I agree they SHOULD, given the circumstances, but they shouldnt have to and I dont blame the ones who dont.

I agree with you but for different reasons, you likely think its because they are just stupid, but obviously according to any rational person its because they are uneducated compared to rich people who get the best schools and their parents pay for their college. Ignorance and stupidity are two different things as far as im concerned. Poor people are ignorant, due to a lack of education, not stupid because of free will.

You know what the number one prevention of pregnancy is? Its not condoms or birth control. Its Education. The best way to keep poor people from having too many kids is to educate them about it, how are you going to do that when poor people get the worst schools in the country simply by virtue of being born poor? Being born poor means you go to crappy schools, going to crappy schools lowers your opportunities in life, and deny it all you want you know its true which is why you would never send your own children to a crappy school. Its all a simple matter of education, if we can fund schools equally not based on property taxes (meaning poor people get poor schools) than we can greatly mitigate these problems. I was born in deep poverty, but thankfully my dad found a book for me to read which set me on the path to education, but what about everyone around me? Nobody gave them a decent book to read, statistically on average there is 1 book for every 300 children in poor neighborhoods. Just think about that for a second.....ONE book, for every 300 children.....Does this seem right to you? For rich kids its something like 15 books for every one child on average. Its not a coincidence that rich kids make better financial and life decisions than poor kids, they are raised in a insanely better environment with far less stress than poor kids. When both your parents are on drugs and your school is filled to the top with gangs, what incentive do you have to go? Very little. Sure, in the long run school will help you but how would you know that if you havent learned it well enough IN SCHOOL? Your parents are on drugs, so you cant learn it from them, your school is full of gangs and underpaid teachers so they arent going to make any real effort to teach you, basically to make it out of poverty you have to be some sort of genius who has the mental abilities of super hero to be able to block all the problems in your life out and focus on getting a scholarship in a gang infested school. Its damn near impossible, stop blaming poor people for being in a mess THEY WERE BORN INTO, and on top of that you have the balls to congratulate rich people for being born rich and maintaining that lifestyle? (*)(*)(*)(*) that, the whole concept of "blame the poor, suck ass to the rich" is sick and twisted beyond imagination.

 

Part of being a responsible parent is being able to provide for your child. If you cannot do that then it does not matter how much you "want" a kid, that is being selfish and unfair to the children.

Anybody can qualify for federal loans to attain a 4-yr degree or go to a certified trade school, you do not need to be rich.

They are guaranteed.

No it does not. Do you think that only kids who go to prep or private schools know that getting pregnant means it will cost you money and time? Now if your theory was correct we would never see anyone breaking out of poverty but millions do it. This tells us that the reason is not poor schools or lack of education, it is about motivation. Those who break out take the necessary steps and do the necessary work to ensure it happens while those who are lazy....sit around and have babies because, like you said, they don't want to wait until they are prepared, the feel they are entitled to it and want society to help them with their bad choice.

 

The concept of "wealth redistribution" irritates me however wealth isn't concentrated in small pockets the way it is by accident.

Level the playing field, don't change the players.

 

The playing field is level now.

Equal opportunity should be the goal, not equal results. As long as there are pathways to success then the state has done their required work.

 

How very homophobic of you. Are you going to round up gay people or just seize their assets?

 

Cool - then go be the CEO of Microsoft.

Let me know how it works out for you.

The suggestion that we operate on a level playing field is a farce.

Every society, government has a "ruling class", the minority who control the majority of the wealth and power. Be it a democracy, socialist state, communist, monarchy - all have systems controlled by class and wealth, ours is no different.

So are you suggesting that a vast minority of people are "exceptional" that the one guy in a hundred is good enough to be wealthy while the rest of us are schmucks who couldn't think our way out of a wet paper bag?

It sure seems like that's what you're implying.

 

I could pursue the CEO of Microsoft if I wanted to. I could get the education required, get hired at their company, and work my way up. That is the definition of a level playing field. Every single person has the ability to become part of the ruler class in the US. Look at people like Herman Cain who do it all the time and it was not because he was privileged, it was because he had goals and worked hard towards them.

The reason many people CHOOSE to remain in poverty is lack of motivation to either do the required work to get them out or to figure out the necessary steps to take to make it happen. Not because they can not do it.

 

Oh, to be young and naive again...

[video=youtube;PSZxmZmBfnU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSZxmZmBfnU[/video]

 

What exactly would prevent me from doing so?

Are the CEO's getting together annually to determine that my "class" should never be allowed into their little circle? There are CEO's of many companies that came from the ground floor in case you have not noticed.

 

Please provide your solutions for making it so the poor can create their own wealth.

 

Actually, people don't do it all of the time. Economic and social mobility in the US has stayed at a fairly low rate compared to other wealthy nations for the past 50 years. The people who manage it are the exceptions not the rule. The idea that poor people are only poor because they choose to be is just nonsense.

 

The fact that people can do it means that the possibility is there if people want it. The reasons they do not do it is something entirely different that needs to be addressed which leads us back to the main point. I made a thread yesterday showing how 1/3 of US citizens now receive some sort of entitlement help from the government so it is this very rise in relying on the government that is preventing people from taking other routes.

And the liberals want to increase this help more, further enabling, people to remain at the poverty level. When Cortez landed in the New World he burnt all of his ships so that his men would be forced to deal with their situation without running away and the same principle applies here. The more you enable poor people the less likely they are to improve their own lives.

How many poor people working minimum wage jobs are hoping for that increase in pay just so they can go to college to break out of their cycle?

Very few I would imagine, they want more money to have more to spend on everyday expenditures and have zero plans to improve their lives overall.

 

This totally ignores economics. Without all those poor, the wealthy have no workers. Without substantial numbers of workers, goods and services become scarce because only the wealthy can then provide those goods and services, and only if they actually choose to do so. So they all sit around enjoying their wealth, and all of a sudden someone needs toilet paper. Who makes the toilet paper? Any remaining toilet paper will be bought up quickly as supplies run short, running up the prices (assuming there is a market within which to buy it). So they run up the prices on all the things they need because those all become short on supply. Eventually their wealth means nothing and they're all poor as they get into bidding wars to buy stuff, making all that money worth less and less very quickly. Rich becomes relative and the "poorest" among them are first to find themselves "poor" because they have the least with which to buy anything, and with limited supplies of things the prices continue to rise and eat away at their wealth until eventually they have none. Those with the most win, just like today, and everyone else becomes to some degree poor, or at least "less wealthy" than those at the top.

With no new income because they're all living on their wealth, there is still a wealth gap between each person relative to the wealth of others. The one with the least is poor immediately as his or her money can buy the least amount of whatever goods remain after you rid the world of workers to produce things. He or she will also be first to volunteer to produce things in order to gain more wealth, giving the wealthiest control over the livelihood of the new poor person. And then we're back here talking about it.

 

The mere possibility of success is not the equivalent of a level playing field. The fact that most people do not do it suggests that the playing field is not level. Economic and social mobility in the US has been at a fairly low rate compared to other wealthy nations for 50 years. It's stayed pretty stable over that time as well. So your contention that the recent rise in entitlements is responsible doesn't really make sense. The rise in entitlements is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

The reality is, social welfare programs have improved the living conditions of poor people and reduced the poverty rate significantly. So I'm not sure what evidence you have that helping poor people doesn't improve their lives.

First of all, college costs are astonomical and most minimum wage workers would probably need to take on thousands in debt to pay for it. Second of all, not everybody is capable of succeeding in college. There are plenty of hard-working, blue-collar people in this country who aren't "book smart". Should they be written off?