Elara : Please re-read my post. Although some are unlucky, several people are without riches because they simply don't choose to go the extra mile, or think outside the box.

pi0x : That wouldn't solve anything really. If everyone had the same amount of money, what's the point of trying to invent something or starting a business?

Sephitard9001 : No, it's not a broad statement. Helen Keller, for example, was smart, even though she couldn't hear or see.

the_casualty : That's because people took care of her, and she was given special treatment, and special educations. How would a starving African get all of that in order to become successful?

Sephitard9001 : Tis been done several times before, my friend. Anything is possible. Although not everyone is fortunate enough to be bestowed such luck, it IS possible. W/e, this is hella off-topic anyways.

the_casualty : Hellen Keller was very smart, and did overcome her difficulties, but Sephitard does make a good point in that she did receive better treatment because her family was well off.

Sephitard9001 : i mean its stupid you can afford pointless wars and deaths more than the health needs of americans.i didnt say your healthcare was bad,i said many cant afford it and i think thats wrong.as you said yourself,its the wealthier canadians,i know in america you think that you shouldnt have much federal control and americans should be left to themselves appart from protecting there rights,but i think everyone has the right to good health and the ability to work,something you cant have without affordable healthcare.it dosent matter that the care is good if you cant afford it.

thenumberone : Only 15.3% more or less of Americans DON'T have healthcare, I would say anything above 50% is an accomplishment, and it's figured at about 83%. I would say it's affordable to the majority, and the majority AREN'T rich mind you.

Sephitard9001 : 15 is quite a lot really,if i said 15%americans were unemployed,that would be bad(i am assuming/hoping tha isnt the case) you would,i assume,think,thats pretty bad.if i said 15%had not been allowed to vote for no good reason,again,alot.if i said 15% were not able to get healthcare then,i still think thats not good for the richest nation.sure its a minority but so is 49%,its still significant.there are roughly 340 million americans,now in that context 15%suddenly sounds like quite a lot.just under, 1 in 7 americans, is therefore not at full health, thats quite a lot,under 1 in 7 remember,i think your people should take precedence over costly wars,or simple tax increases would mean you could do both if you really find the wars necessary(that however is a whole other topic,so il stick to healthcare)

No, but we should tax the s*** out of them. The USSR collapsed because the government gave everyone' hard-earned money away and lead to nobody caring anymore.
Would you like someone taking away your hard-earned money?

Its a good thing our family gets 45% of the paycheck deducted for income taxes only. Its not like we worked hard for the money or anything, oh wait...

no i don't think we should it doesn't matter if they earned it unfairly or easily it's not ours to take sure hey might be snobs and greedy but us wanting there money is being just like them wanting more money pretty soon we'll want more and more and the tables would have turned

Total redistribution, no. A large part of the drive behind innovation is the idea that if a person puts a lot of work into something new and useful, they will be compensated for it. Redistributing the wealth entirely would kill that incentive and cause stagnation, which would be the downfall of modern society. There are people that have worked themselves to the bone to get their fortune and it would be wrong to punish them for it.

That being said, I have a hard time believing that anyone making a six figure salary would have a hard time paying either their taxes or living expenses. The high income itself should be the reward and anything more just invites arrogance and selfishness. With that in mind, I say get rid of the tax cuts exclusive to the rich and let them work to keep their standard of living like everyone else.

Since the "free market" has been set-up to filter money to the top, it is already redistributed. Taxation is, aside from the source of finance for government, a way to even back out the playing field that is so heavily slanted to the wealthy by social programs. These programs are a countries moral report card, and cutting social program says the country doesn't care about people. By allowing tax cuts to the wealthy to continue we say we don't care about education, infrastructure, healthcare, or the elderly, poor, and disabled. Aside from taxing the wealthy, corporations should be made to pay their fair share as well. While jobs are being sent out of the country and record profits have been "earned", big corporations continue to pay little to no taxes at all, putting all the tax burden on small corporations, small business and the middle class. Sickening.

Belegerbs : free market does not equal corporations. If you understood the free market you would understand this.

geeogree : I have read Adam Smith, I know that a free market is the capitalist version of a communist utopia. It will never work, it's impractical to have a market base upon greed in a society with rights and liberty. The corporations are the mouthpiece of the free market and for the past 60 years, especially the past 30, have sought to undo all of the regulations and unions that kept them honest. For the most part it has worked through their purchased politicians. So yes, corporations are the very representation of the current free market system. Though one must really read Turgot, who's philosophy Adam Smith based his "The Wealth of Nations" on. There you can really see the anti-communist Utopian ideals. One extreme doesn't cancel out the other, it's just another extreme.

I would have to not out right walking up to them and taking there money finding the nearest homeless person and giving it to them no, but as others have posted i agree we should tax our top 2% and tax them hard, they have sat comfortably for years, its time i think they actually start helping out.

the_casualty : The "trickle down" method has been going on since Reagan. It doesn't work. Rich people tend to keep the money that they have in savings. Capitalism relies on people spending money. Poor people are actually very good at spending the little money that they have. There's a bit of irony to this. Despite the rich keeping the poor down, the poor aspire to be among them. Fancy clothes, gadgets, tricked out cars (complete with rims), etc. are commonly seen possessed by the poor and the newly wealthy.

Anything is possible, however, why should it be so hard to succeed in America, the so called "land of opportunity?" It's not fair. A kid from the inner city has nowhere near the same opportunities as some upper middle class suburban kid. The child from the inner city likely grew up around less than reputable characters in a bleak setting. Most people there don't find things like an education or a typical American job to be something to strive for. This is why there are so much drugs, gangs, etc. in the ghetto. These individuals aren't dumb, they're just a product of their environment which in itself is the product of racism.

First off, let me apologize for any misspelled words.

I think redistribution of wealth is not going to help anyone while we still maintain a capitalist economy. It's like pouring water on a desert. The water evaporates, the wind blows the resulting clouds to colder, wetter places, the water turns into rain, and falls down. you can keep transporting water down to te desert, but it's no use.

So if we want to help poor people, we should be looking at different economic systems, though communism is not the way to go either, in my opinion.

I don't think we should have to, i think the super wealthy elite of our world(the top 2 %)should realize that all that money they are sitting on that they are never going to spend, could be used for a better purpose than padding they're bank vaults.

The problem there is that the top 2% enjoys being at the top of the foodchain.
And with the way current economy works, they'll be staying there, because money attracts money, even when it temporarily disappears. People owning multinational buisness imperia are still going to make more money than they can give away, because every dollar someone halfway round the world spends, is still ending up in their hands.

So I say, stop focussing on static money until you find a way to split the flows a little more.

Controversy is ensued.

Just to give my two cents worth of ink in opinions, I am towards the opinion of distribution of wealth from the obscenely wealthy to the legitimately poor. The exceptionally lopsided form of the capitalist economy has always been something that seriously irritated me. If we had a way to ensure that everybody was able to, at the least, sustain themselves then that would be great. Perhaps if we did what people, particularly I believe America unless I am mistaken, did during the great depression by creating jobs and rebuilding an infrastructure then perhaps we wouldn't have the problems we do today.

Truth be told we don't need all the extravagant items that people burns their money on needlessly. We don't need fancy cars or needless toys and electronics...the money we spend on absolute garbage could easily be diverted somewhere more practical.

It is a fiddly debate simply due to the diversity of all the possible circumstances. You could have someone who was born into wealth and didn't work a day of their lives (*cough* Perez Hilton *Cough*), or have people born into poverty and due to fell circumstance could not get their way out no matter how hard they work. You could have someone wealthy who messed up through their own poor decisions and has to trade the valuable suit for a cheaper trench coat and visa versa. There is no single answer that will satisfy everyone and that is the issue.

I do not advocate communism, but while we are talking about the redistribution of wealth, I may as well give a brief opinion on it. I think that the biggest flaw with communism is not the system, but the leader. Note how generally (not always but generally) leaders tend to spend the money on the military instead of for the people. I also believe a lot of people who believes that communism is the epitome of evil has taken a lot of influence from propaganda dating from the cold-war.