Wealth Redistribution

[ThePainefulTruth]

Socialists use compassion (a religious concept) as the reason to forcibly redistribute wealth. But I think that's more politics than compassion. If we're going to be uniform in our compassion, that redistribution would have to take place world wide. Is there anyone in the US, other than the voluntarily poor (drop outs) who wouldn't be giving up a major portion of their incomes to others outside the US.

The average income in the US is $27K*, which does not include government aid in the form of: housing, furniture, appliances, utilities, transportation, healthcare and food stamps, which could easily bump that up to $30K.

The average global income, $3K, does NOT usually include any of the above US benefits. So the average American would be redistributing in cash and benefits $27K, raising the global average to what, guessing $3.5K...OK $4K.

So now what, put it to a vote? Keep in mind that the vote must necessarily be worldwide. Democracy would truly be compassionate then, don't you think?

Wouldn't it be better to promote economic freedom (capitalism with legal oversight) around the world, which rising tide would raise all boats.

* Av. income for US by race:
Whites $31K
Asians $30K
Blacks $18K
Hispanics $15K[/code]

[Divine Insight]

And BTW, ya got one by me, distracted me with all those read herrings from the original question: What about worldwide redistribution of wealth, you for it or not. I figure with all those red herrings you're probably side-stepping it.

Being that I'm personally living well below the poverty level in the USA and I am seriously financially strapped, I'm all for the worldwide redistribution of wealth. That could only mean that I would personally be far better off than I currently am.

But where is there any practical plan to accomplish such a feat?

I could ask you if you would like to live in a world where there is no pain and suffering of any kind. But what value does the question have if I can't offer a realistic plan to achieve such a world?

[ThePainefulTruth]

And BTW, ya got one by me, distracted me with all those read herrings from the original question: What about worldwide redistribution of wealth, you for it or not. I figure with all those red herrings you're probably side-stepping it.

Being that I'm personally living well below the poverty level in the USA and I am seriously financially strapped, I'm all for the worldwide redistribution of wealth. That could only mean that I would personally be far better off than I currently am.

But where is there any practical plan to accomplish such a feat?

I could ask you if you would like to live in a world where there is no pain and suffering of any kind. But what value does the question have if I can't offer a realistic plan to achieve such a world?

Liberals don't worry about plans. They just tell the government to do it, sort of like Obama was supposed to pay for the stuff they wanted out of his stash. Obamacare, the concept and funding, was a train wreck to begin with; which is why it's lying there like your swimming pool had just been converted to you septic tank. "You like your swimming pool, you keep your swimming pool. Yeah right. They don't have enough money, hell print some more. Idiots like that actually vote, which is why it's hard to tell the live ones from the dead.

You have to justify redistribution (theft) to begin with. And if you justify it on a national scale, how then does whatever argument you use not mandate it on a global scale. You appear to be saying you got nothing to loose, so absolutely you'll vote for it. Typical democracy, mob rule.

You live below the poverty level? What, in your parents basement??? How do you have the wherewithal to access the Internet?

[Divine Insight]

You appear to be saying you got nothing to loose, so absolutely you'll vote for it.

Who said anything about voting for it? I haven't seen a realistic plan to vote for yet.

I simply said that I'm 'for' wealth redistribution. But I'm only for it if it can be truly implemented in a way that would actually work for everyone involved. I haven't seen any proposals for how that might be accomplished. Certainly nothing Donald Trump has suggested would accomplish anything sane. His ideas are entirely dictatorship. He's not trying to COOPERATE with anyone. You can't force this on people, you need to have a plan that make enough sense that other people can see the benefit of getting on board with it.

You live below the poverty level? What, in your parents basement??? How do you have the wherewithal to access the Internet?

I didn't always live below poverty level. To the contrary I was quite fortunate in earlier years. I was able to obtain my home and pay it off. That's the only thing that keeps me going. I have no rent since my house is paid for. Plus I do ALL my own maintenance on everything from my house, to my cars, to my computers, etc.

If I had to pay professionals to come in and do maintenance I could not afford to do that. Just to give you an example, I needed a decent heating system. Since I own 10 acres of wooded land heating with wood makes perfect sense. It's basically "free" heat, save for maintaining a couple antique tractors to haul the logs and chainsaws to cut them. Items I had purchased back when I had money.

But to burn the wood efficiently I need an outdoor wood boiler system. To buy a commercial one it would have cost well over $10,000. Especially if you include the indoor heat exchanges etc. That's something I could not afford. So I built my own system from scratch using materials I obtained from junk and the final cost was under $2000. I might add that my system works just fine. At least as good as the $10,000 system would have worked.

So a large part of my survival has to do with the fact that I can build things on my own using extremely cheap salvaged parts. Most people cannot do that.

Also people who start out in poverty aren't going to be able to buy a 10 acre estate and pay it off so they no longer need to pay rent or a mortgage. So not having been in poverty my entire life is what makes my current day poverty possible.

Also, I only paid $500 a piece for the two cars I own. I've had them both for over 10 years now and I've been keeping them up ONLY because I do all my own work on them. I could never afford to take them to a repair station to have them repaired. Those prices are outrageous.

And most people could not fix their own cars. I might add also, than back when I was making good money I spend a very large part of it on TOOLS. So I have a quite well-equipped woodshop and metal shop. This makes it possible for me to build and repair things on my own. People who are born into poverty wouldn't even be able to obtain the tools I have.

I'm lucky to have become poverty stricken only after I had once been "middle class". I might add also that I was "low middle class". There was never a time when I would consider myself having been rich. I was just lucky to buy my current home, and all the tools I have. Or smart depending on how you look at it.

But today my income is well below poverty level. If I didn't have my home and tools I'd be screwed for sure! My home and tools is my retirement nest egg.

Also, if I sold my home and tools the money I would get for them wouldn't last long at all and I would soon be totally broke. So my home and tools are all that keep my going. Without them I would indeed be destitute.

Unfortunately most people who are living in poverty don't have a home and tools to rely one. Plus years of experience and knowledge of how to use the tools to build and repair stuff. That's important too. If someone had my home and tools and didn't know how to fix things and keep it up cheap they wouldn't last long either.

So I'm surviving due to what I had purchased in the past, and knowing how to use them.

If something happened me in terms of health where I couldn't keep this place up anymore, I'd also be done for. There's no way I could afford to pay someone else to keep the place up. I'd have to sell it, and the money would soon be gone, and that would be that. I'd be homeless and destitute in no time.

So I'm living on the 'edge' really. I'm totally dependent on my health, my home, and my tools. Lose any of those and I'm done for. And I am slowly losing my health and noticing that it does indeed affect how well I can keep things moving forward.

In fact, if I had to take a 40hr work-week job today I couldn't do it. There's no way that I could physical hold up working every day. I already have bad health days where I can't do much of anything at all. Fortunately my house won't fire me if I don't do things according to a rigid schedule. But if I had to show up to work every day and punch a clock I probably couldn't even get through the first week without being fired for either coming in late, or missing a day entirely due to poor health.

So yeah, if there were a worldwide distribution of wealth so I could afford to call in people to fix things when needed, that would give me peace of mind as I get older and my health deteriorates even further.

I don't even think about what will happen when I can no longer keep up my home. Or if something horrible happens like having a stroke, for example. If I had a stoke and couldn't keep my place up I'd be done for as well. I live all alone, so there's no one here to even help me out. I'm totally dependent upon my health, skill, abilities, and tools. Take any of those away and I'm done for because I have no money to speak off. At least not enough to pay for any help. Like I say, even if I sold everything I have that money wouldn't last very long in today's world, plus then I would be homeless!

So selling my home and tools to get a quick shot in the arm of money is not an option. That would be utterly foolish and wouldn't last long at all.

[ThePainefulTruth]

You appear to be saying you got nothing to loose, so absolutely you'll vote for it.

Who said anything about voting for it? I haven't seen a realistic plan to vote for yet.

I simply said that I'm 'for' wealth redistribution. But I'm only for it if it can be truly implemented in a way that would actually work for everyone involved. I haven't seen any proposals for how that might be accomplished.

So you want your cake and eat it too? You like it for it's what, its compassion? But know there's no way it could work for everyone--emotionally or practically. Whatever is "unfair" is always made worse when we try to make it "fair".

Certainly nothing Donald Trump has suggested would accomplish anything sane.

Even the WSJ said 3% growth is dreaming. But the second quarter GDP is now estimated to be 4.1%, thanks in large part to the tax cuts.

The tax cut is a masterstroke and it's working whether you care to admit it or not, in unemployment and the economy in general.

His ideas are entirely dictatorship.

Most of what he's done is resend Obama's dictatorial and unconstitutional EOs.

He's not trying to COOPERATE with anyone. You can't force this on people, you need to have a plan that make enough sense that other people can see the benefit of getting on board with it.

He has a plan but the media runs a smokescreen to protect Obama's "legacy", and to keep him from looking good.

I didn't always live below poverty level. To the contrary I was quite fortunate in earlier years. I was able to obtain my home and pay it off. That's the only thing that keeps me going. I have no rent since my house is paid for. Plus I do ALL my own maintenance on everything from my house, to my cars, to my computers, etc.

If I had to pay professionals to come in and do maintenance I could not afford to do that. Just to give you an example, I needed a decent heating system. Since I own 10 acres of wooded land heating with wood makes perfect sense. It's basically "free" heat, save for maintaining a couple antique tractors to haul the logs and chainsaws to cut them. Items I had purchased back when I had money.

But to burn the wood efficiently I need an outdoor wood boiler system. To buy a commercial one it would have cost well over $10,000. Especially if you include the indoor heat exchanges etc. That's something I could not afford. So I built my own system from scratch using materials I obtained from junk and the final cost was under $2000. I might add that my system works just fine. At least as good as the $10,000 system would have worked.

So a large part of my survival has to do with the fact that I can build things on my own using extremely cheap salvaged parts. Most people cannot do that.

Also people who start out in poverty aren't going to be able to buy a 10 acre estate and pay it off so they no longer need to pay rent or a mortgage. So not having been in poverty my entire life is what makes my current day poverty possible.

Also, I only paid $500 a piece for the two cars I own. I've had them both for over 10 years now and I've been keeping them up ONLY because I do all my own work on them. I could never afford to take them to a repair station to have them repaired. Those prices are outrageous.

And most people could not fix their own cars. I might add also, than back when I was making good money I spend a very large part of it on TOOLS. So I have a quite well-equipped woodshop and metal shop. This makes it possible for me to build and repair things on my own. People who are born into poverty wouldn't even be able to obtain the tools I have.

I'm lucky to have become poverty stricken only after I had once been "middle class". I might add also that I was "low middle class". There was never a time when I would consider myself having been rich. I was just lucky to buy my current home, and all the tools I have. Or smart depending on how you look at it.

But today my income is well below poverty level. If I didn't have my home and tools I'd be screwed for sure! My home and tools is my retirement nest egg.

Also, if I sold my home and tools the money I would get for them wouldn't last long at all and I would soon be totally broke. So my home and tools are all that keep my going. Without them I would indeed be destitute.

Unfortunately most people who are living in poverty don't have a home and tools to rely one. Plus years of experience and knowledge of how to use the tools to build and repair stuff. That's important too. If someone had my home and tools and didn't know how to fix things and keep it up cheap they wouldn't last long either.

So I'm surviving due to what I had purchased in the past, and knowing how to use them.

If something happened me in terms of health where I couldn't keep this place up anymore, I'd also be done for. There's no way I could afford to pay someone else to keep the place up. I'd have to sell it, and the money would soon be gone, and that would be that. I'd be homeless and destitute in no time.

So I'm living on the 'edge' really. I'm totally dependent on my health, my home, and my tools. Lose any of those and I'm done for. And I am slowly losing my health and noticing that it does indeed affect how well I can keep things moving forward.

In fact, if I had to take a 40hr work-week job today I couldn't do it. There's no way that I could physical hold up working every day. I already have bad health days where I can't do much of anything at all. Fortunately my house won't fire me if I don't do things according to a rigid schedule. But if I had to show up to work every day and punch a clock I probably couldn't even get through the first week without being fired for either coming in late, or missing a day entirely due to poor health.

So yeah, if there were a worldwide distribution of wealth so I could afford to call in people to fix things when needed, that would give me peace of mind as I get older and my health deteriorates even further.

I don't even think about what will happen when I can no longer keep up my home. Or if something horrible happens like having a stroke, for example. If I had a stoke and couldn't keep my place up I'd be done for as well. I live all alone, so there's no one here to even help me out. I'm totally dependent upon my health, skill, abilities, and tools. Take any of those away and I'm done for because I have no money to speak off. At least not enough to pay for any help. Like I say, even if I sold everything I have that money wouldn't last very long in today's world, plus then I would be homeless!

So selling my home and tools to get a quick shot in the arm of money is not an option. That would be utterly foolish and wouldn't last long at all.

You're healthy but you don't have a job? Or have a job but don't want to mention it? But since you live in the US, being below the poverty level means you have all the benefits you need to sustain you. I assume you have some income, which you'd need to pay your immoral property taxes for the land you own, (read rent from the government).

[Divine Insight]

You appear to be saying you got nothing to loose, so absolutely you'll vote for it.

Who said anything about voting for it? I haven't seen a realistic plan to vote for yet.

I simply said that I'm 'for' wealth redistribution. But I'm only for it if it can be truly implemented in a way that would actually work for everyone involved. I haven't seen any proposals for how that might be accomplished.

So you want your cake and eat it too? You like it for it's what, its compassion? But know there's no way it could work for everyone--emotionally or practically. Whatever is "unfair" is always made worse when we try to make it "fair".

Not true at all. You're pushing your lack of understanding into me.

I actually have a plan for how a redistribution of wealth would work and everyone would come out a winner. The problem is that it's not currently on the political table.

Also, where do you get the idea of a redistribution of wealth would be "unfair"?

Actually what's grossly unfair is the current situation that we have gotten ourselves into where only a small percentage of people are well-off whilst the vast majority are struggling. What's fair about that?

And why would you support that unless you are one of the rich folks?

Certainly nothing Donald Trump has suggested would accomplish anything sane.

Even the WSJ said 3% growth is dreaming. But the second quarter GDP is now estimated to be 4.1%, thanks in large part to the tax cuts.

The tax cut is a masterstroke and it's working whether you care to admit it or not, in unemployment and the economy in general.

You're fooling yourself if you think it's working. Aren't you paying attention to what's actually happening in the world today?

Those tax cuts benefited the rich, not the struggling masses. The GDP says absolutely nothing at all about who's actually making money. So don't be fooled by that number.

His ideas are entirely dictatorship.

Most of what he's done is resend Obama's dictatorial and unconstitutional EOs.

When did I defend Obama? If you have a bone to pick with Obama take it up with him. Don't bother me with it.

He's not trying to COOPERATE with anyone. You can't force this on people, you need to have a plan that make enough sense that other people can see the benefit of getting on board with it.

He has a plan but the media runs a smokescreen to protect Obama's "legacy", and to keep him from looking good.

Apparently you seem to have a problem with Obama. That's your problem, not mine.

The fact is that Donald Trump isn't working "with" anyone. To the contrary he's working against everyone. No need to bring Obama into it at all. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

You're healthy but you don't have a job? Or have a job but don't want to mention it?

I live in an extremely rural area. There are no good paying jobs to be had close enough to my home. Could I get a low-paying job that would continue to keep me at poverty level? Sure. But what would be the point to that?

I'm retired and collect well-earned social security. In fact, most people who are at poverty level actually WORK every day just to live at poverty level so I'm very lucky in that regard.

But there are many other elderly folks like myself that find it quite difficult to make ends meet on social security, so I'm quite sure I'm not the only one on social security who is living at poverty level.

But since you live in the US, being below the poverty level means you have all the benefits you need to sustain you. I assume you have some income, which you'd need to pay your immoral property taxes for the land you own, (read rent from the government).

I'm so poor that I qualify for a full property tax rebate.

By the way, PLEASE NOTE: I'm not complaining about my situation. I simply described it. If you feel that my situation warrants a compliant that's your judgement, not mine. I simply pointed out that I would do better if there was a redistribution of wealth because I'm at the low and therefore could only move up.

By the way, when I say that I am "below poverty level" that's not a judgement on my part. It's just a fact based on what the USA considers to be poverty level income. It's also not a "complaint" on my part. It's just a fact.

Like I say, the fact that I also own my home and it's paid for, and I have acquired many tools over the course of my life and know how to use them makes my "poverty level income" bearable. In fact, I consider myself to be quite "Well-Off" actually.

I'm not complaining at all. I simply pointed out that a redistribution of wealth would improve my financial situation. It would improve the financial situation for thousands of other people too.

Consider this: I'm LUCKY! I own my home and have amassed many tools and supplies that I know how to use.

But what about the thousands of elderly Americans who are also living on social security but don't own a home, or have tools and supplies, not would know how to use them if they had them?

Those people are in a dire situation. So consider them and forget about me (the lucky one!) I've living in heaven on earth. No problem here.

Humanity as a whole has to learn how to live in a world where wealth is fairly distributed among everyone. We can't continue with only a few people getting filthy rich and the masses living in poverty. That's not a healthy strategy.

[ThePainefulTruth]

You appear to be saying you got nothing to loose, so absolutely you'll vote for it.

Who said anything about voting for it? I haven't seen a realistic plan to vote for yet.

I simply said that I'm 'for' wealth redistribution. But I'm only for it if it can be truly implemented in a way that would actually work for everyone involved. I haven't seen any proposals for how that might be accomplished.

So you want your cake and eat it too? You like it for it's what, its compassion? But know there's no way it could work for everyone--emotionally or practically. Whatever is "unfair" is always made worse when we try to make it "fair".

Not true at all. You're pushing your lack of understanding into me.

Well, since you're light on details, I group you with the other socialists.

I actually have a plan for how a redistribution of wealth would work and everyone would come out a winner. The problem is that it's not currently on the political table.

It would still be wrong if not even more unfair.

Also, where do you get the idea of a redistribution of wealth would be "unfair"?

Like if someone worked his butt off all his life to provide for himself and his family, and then some beer swilling welfare couch potato gets the government to take most of it from the guy by force (theft) and "redistribute" it to him and others like him, if that ain't unfair, nothing is.

Actually what's grossly unfair is the current situation that we have gotten ourselves into where only a small percentage of people are well-off whilst the vast majority are struggling. What's fair about that?

Number one, you're promoting sloth, and punishing industry and success, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CHARACTER OF WHO YOU'RE TAKING IT FROM AND GIVING IT TOO.

And second, no matter what we do, Life Ain't Fair. Trying to make it fair for the country is impossible, you only make it worse, and you still haven't even addressed making things "fair" for the rest of the world.

And why would you support that unless you are one of the rich folks?

I'm not wealthy by any means, but I still support it because what I do have, I have because of a free market capitalist system, that's at least somewhat moral and now moving in the right direction. Corruption, a moral/legal double standard is any country's greatest enemy.

Certainly nothing Donald Trump has suggested would accomplish anything sane.

Even the WSJ said 3% growth is dreaming. But the second quarter GDP is now estimated to be 4.1%, thanks in large part to the tax cuts.

The tax cut is a masterstroke and it's working whether you care to admit it or not, in unemployment and the economy in general.

You're fooling yourself if you think it's working. Aren't you paying attention to what's actually happening in the world today?

Those tax cuts benefited the rich, not the struggling masses. The GDP says absolutely nothing at all about who's actually making money. So don't be fooled by that number.

You obviously need a better news source instead of fake news--which is why we're here.

His ideas are entirely dictatorship.

Most of what he's done is resend Obama's dictatorial and unconstitutional EOs.

When did I defend Obama? If you have a bone to pick with Obama take it up with him. Don't bother me with it.

So you're not a Democrat and didn't vote for him? If not, what ARE you saying?

The fact is that Donald Trump isn't working "with" anyone. To the contrary he's working against everyone. No need to bring Obama into it at all. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

More fake news. Yet you say you're not for Obama or his ilk. There seems to be a whole lot here you're not saying, except for some unspecified (necessarily immoral) plan for redistribution of wealth

You're healthy but you don't have a job? Or have a job but don't want to mention it?

I live in an extremely rural area. There are no good paying jobs to be had close enough to my home. Could I get a low-paying job that would continue to keep me at poverty level? Sure. But what would be the point to that?

I'm retired and collect well-earned social security. In fact, most people who are at poverty level actually WORK every day just to live at poverty level so I'm very lucky in that regard.

You're still hiding something, you're not telling the whole story.

But there are many other elderly folks like myself that find it quite difficult to make ends meet on social security, so I'm quite sure I'm not the only one on social security who is living at poverty level.

Because SS is corrupt and an inept socialist imposition. I'm comfortably retired because I knew it would never be enough or might even collapse. So I saved, and learned to invest conservatively, not looking for the "too good to be true" crap.

I'm so poor that I qualify for a full property tax rebate.

There's your wealth redistribution system already in place, the rebate (which not all states have) and all the other benefits I mentioned.

By the way, PLEASE NOTE: I'm not complaining about my situation. I simply described it. If you feel that my situation warrants a compliant that's your judgement, not mine. I simply pointed out that I would do better if there was a redistribution of wealth because I'm at the low and therefore could only move up.

You're not complaining, but you want (deserve?) more. Sounds like a complaint to me.

By the way, when I say that I am "below poverty level" that's not a judgement on my part. It's just a fact based on what the USA considers to be poverty level income. It's also not a "complaint" on my part. It's just a fact.

And that poverty level, + benefits, is still several factors above the average global poverty level. Is that "fair", or justified by whatever you're using to warrant redistribution here in the US.

Like I say, the fact that I also own my home and it's paid for, and I have acquired many tools over the course of my life and know how to use them makes my "poverty level income" bearable. In fact, I consider myself to be quite "Well-Off" actually.

Which makes you an even better target to be redistributed from.

I'm not complaining at all. I simply pointed out that a redistribution of wealth would improve my financial situation. It would improve the financial situation for thousands of other people too.

So which is it, do you want/deserve redistribution or not?

Consider this: I'm LUCKY! I own my home and have amassed many tools and supplies that I know how to use.

But what about the thousands of elderly Americans who are also living on social security but don't own a home, or have tools and supplies, not would know how to use them if they had them?

They should not have had SS but been told to save and invest for their retirement. The same amount we are forced to give to SS could be 10 times more--in a bad economy.

Those people are in a dire situation. So consider them and forget about me (the lucky one!) I've living in heaven on earth. No problem here.

Humanity as a whole has to learn how to live in a world where wealth is fairly distributed among everyone. We can't continue with only a few people getting filthy rich and the masses living in poverty. That's not a healthy strategy.

Neither is rewarding sloth, which is what you'll often get if they know they don't have to work for it--just vote for it.

[2ndRateMind]

Good thread. I was about to start a new one, possibly to be titled 'Living is a Political Act. Discuss'. But this thread will do just as well. By living, we consume resources. How we distribute those resources (ie., who gets what, consumes what, and says who?) is the central contention of political philosophy, and if politics is applied religion, then of the fundamental human existential question, 'What must I do to be saved?' I honestly do not think that racking up more and more $ in the bank account will count for much, come judgment at the end of days. On the contrary, I can quite well imagine God, faced with this or that billionaire, saying gently: 'So you had all these resources, all this control. Why did you not succour those with little or nothing?'

Best wishes, 2RM

[ThePainefulTruth]

Good thread. I was about to start a new one, possibly to be titled 'Living is a Political Act. Discuss'. But this thread will do just as well. By living, we consume resources. How we distribute those resources (ie., who gets what, consumes what, and says who?) is the central contention of political philosophy, and if politics is applied religion, then of the fundamental human existential question, 'What must I do to be saved?' I honestly do not think that racking up more and more $ in the bank account will count for much, come judgment at the end of days. On the contrary, I can quite well imagine God, faced with this or that billionaire, saying gently: 'So you had all these resources, all this control. Why did you not succour those with little or nothing?'

Best wishes, 2RM

Well, politics is the rules of the application of power, and determining who holds that power. Philosophy comes in for determining the first, by deciding who has rights and what those rights are. And if might makes right, only one or a few are likely to have power with the rest being at their mercy.

So, we eventually decide that everyone has equal rights. But does that mean we all have a right to an equal outcome? Trying to force equal outcomes turns out to be impossible for many reasons, the foremost of which is the corrupt demagogues who worm their way to the top by buying the favor of the electorate.

As for being "saved", first of all we have to throw all the false "revealed religions" out on their self-serving butts and see what we have left. Three possibilities, agnostic atheism, and agnostic deism, and nihilistic materialism. From our standpoint in this universe, there is no difference between them, leaving us to deduce a moral code on our own (another thread). Once we do that, we must come up with a principle which promotes being good and moral, the only salvation or "being saved" that there is--and that principle is Enlightened Self-Interest. The more people that lead by setting a moral and virtuous example, the more the rest will follow, and the greater their influence of achieving the ultimate universal goal, good order--with which only despots and anarchists would argue, a pathetic minority BTW.

And finally, the morality of wealth. If it's acquired honorably, as happens more often than the envious are willing to admit, the showy part of it is only a small part in most cases. Take the Trump Tower, for instance. Building them and running them and the investment they represent benefit very many, from the doorman to the general manager. Is it fair that the one earns so much more than the other. Life ain't fair, which is why we need to seize opportunities and (real) education.

So what's your take on wealth redistribution? Is there a fair AND moral way to do it, keeping in mind that to be consistent (if fairness were possible), it must be done on a global scale.

[2ndRateMind]

So what's your take on wealth redistribution? Is there a fair AND moral way to do it, keeping in mind that to be consistent (if fairness were possible), it must be done on a global scale.

Yes. According to my calculations, if all the wealth in the world were distributed equitably, everyone gets a net worth of approx $33,000. If all the production of the world were distributed equitably, everyone gets a net income of approx $16,000 per year. Multiply by 4 for the allowance of the conventional nuclear family. If these figures were to be achieved, then absolute, extreme poverty would be eradicated worldwide, and we would all have sufficient to live out a reasonably dignified, environmentally sustainable lifestyle.

But, I think, these figures a pretty tough ask. Particularly as I think they should be implemented voluntarily, each individual helping out each less fortunate individual as they see fit, and not compulsorily by taxation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Well, since you're light on details, I group you with the other socialists.

With all due respect I don't give a hoot how you might group people. That means absolutely nothing to me.

Your arguments are based on antiquated thinking. It's as simple as that.

We are currently living in an increasingly automated world. The real problem with the inequality of wealth today has to do with the fact that those who can afford to purchase automatic manufacturing machines become rich while those who can't become destitute.

That's not a "fair" system by any means.

When we finally reach the point where robots are doing all the labor what then? Do only the people who own the robots get paid while everyone who was put out of work by the robots becomes destitute.

Capitalism had it's day. Those days are over. Now capitalism is nothing more than an unfair advantage to those who are already rich.

If humanity is to survive it absolutely needs to become more socialistic. There's just no question about that. The only question is how soon will those arguing for capitalism finally realize this?

Ask yourself this very simple question:

When robotics becomes the major labor force, who's going to benefit from that? Only the owners of the robots? Or all of humanity?

Clearly if it's not the latter then it's it's not going to be fair at all.

All of humanity needs to benefit from our technological advances. Not just a handful of rich people.

So argue for antiquated capitalism to your heart's content. This is the 21st century and capitalism is simply no longer viable.

That's just a fact of reality.

Humans who aren't willing to share the technological advances of humanity are nothing short of selfish greedy people. There's no call to hog all the wealth whilst the masses die of hunger and homelessness in the streets.

That's not only not viable, but it's not even humane.

So why argue for something so inhumane?

Trump and his economic polices represent retro-thinking from a period in time that cannot be reproduced. He's just not in touch with reality. He's taking us down a road of extreme selfishness and ignorance that is a big DEAD END.

We're not going back to the 1950's. That just ain't gonna happen.

Face reality.

To move forward we need to learn how to share the wealth, not continue with the greed and selfishness of a capitalistic mentality. That's an antiquated system that simply has no place in the modern world. It's time to move forward to something that benefits everyone, instead of just the filthy rich.

Trump is most likely the last gasp of capitalistic self-centered mentality, and when he demonstrates that it can't be made to work (which he is quickly doing) it will become clear that we need to move forward.

Neither is rewarding sloth, which is what you'll often get if they know they don't have to work for it--just vote for it.

By the way, this reveals a lot about how you pass judgement on poor people. You seem to think that if a person is poor it's entirely their own fault because they are simply too lazy to work. That's absolute nonsense. There are a lot of people who would love to have a decent paying job but simply can't get one because they don't have the credentials to be hired. That doesn't even mean that they don't have the skills. To the contrary, they could actually be better skills than people who do have credentials, but they simply won't be considered for the job with out the proper credentials. And it takes a lot of time and money to get the proper credentials.

Also, look at labors who lost their jobs? Is it a coal miner's fault that his coal mining job is gone and he has no other skills or credentials to get a decent job?

A high-tech company isn't going to be hiring an out-of-work coal miner or steel worker. Does this make the out-of-work coal miner or steel worker "sloth"?

Times are changing. And an out-of-work coal miner isn't going to compete for a computer programming job against young graduates from college who majored in computer programming.

So the idea that all poor people are just lazy is an idea that hasn't been very well thought out at all. A lot of poor people work their behind off every single day just to live in poverty. They no doubt work physically harder than people who have high-paying jobs.