Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Material wealth: For the many or the few? (READ THREAD FIRST)

Many29%29% - 24
Few28%28% - 23
Somewhere in between32%32% - 27
Other9%9% - 8
Total: 82
2007-05-11 11:25:49
BVC
Member
+325|7142
Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
2007-05-11 11:28:56
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7079|949

Pubic wrote:

Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
Give it to everyone.
2007-05-11 11:29:03
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7068|London, England
I'm inclined to say give it to everyone. But after seeing Chavs take over this country, i can safely say that the majority can't be trusted and/or don't deserve it. So i would give it to the few, but you know they're probably corrupt themselves. I guess if you could find a way to see who deserves it and who doesn't, i'd use that.
2007-05-11 11:35:14
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7209

The few who can manage it.
2007-05-11 11:36:47
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
Many, obviously.
2007-05-11 11:45:40
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7209

CameronPoe wrote:

Many, obviously.
Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.
2007-05-11 11:49:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Many, obviously.
Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.
Point taken.
2007-05-11 11:50:24
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7189|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Many, obviously.
Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.
By material wealth I take it to mean not below the  poverty line - this does not mean everyone is a multi millionaire / billionaire, or, people killing themselves doing the shitty jobs just maintain a decent standard of life. hence the minimum wage..
2007-05-11 11:52:38
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7209

IG-Calibre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Many, obviously.
Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.
By material wealth I take it to mean not below the  poverty line - this does not mean everyone is a multi millionaire / billionaire, or, people killing themselves doing the shitty jobs just maintain a decent standard of life. hence the minimum wage..

Pubic wrote:

between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream)
I must be reading this wrong then.
2007-05-11 11:57:25
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7189|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

usmarine2005 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.
By material wealth I take it to mean not below the  poverty line - this does not mean everyone is a multi millionaire / billionaire, or, people killing themselves doing the shitty jobs just maintain a decent standard of life. hence the minimum wage..

Pubic wrote:

between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream)
I must be reading this wrong then.
nah you're reading it right - i'm just sayin'
2007-05-11 12:06:37
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7213|Cambridge (UK)
Wasn't sure whether I should be voting 'other' or 'many' - I'd choose total redistribution - everyone has equal share of everything.
2007-05-11 12:11:26
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6945|Texas
Every time I'm somewhere and someone makes a remark about my watch or car or gives me a snide "going to play golf again" remark I realize that it wouldn't be any fun to be rich if you couldn't have things other people can't afford.

I say keep wealth for the few... as long as I'm one of the few...
2007-05-11 12:54:01
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7096

It wouldn't work, you'd just get stupid amounts of inflation until everyone was poor again.
2007-05-11 14:04:03
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7149|Little Rock, Arkansas

Pubic wrote:

Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
The few.

[begin side conversation]
The concept of freehold doesn't really apply here. People either own their house and land, or they rent/lease it. there is no way for someone to own a house and not own the land its on, short of a condo complex or something like that.
[end side conversation]
2007-05-11 14:14:59
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7079|949

blisteringsilence wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
The few.

[begin side conversation]
The concept of freehold doesn't really apply here. People either own their house and land, or they rent/lease it. there is no way for someone to own a house and not own the land its on, short of a condo complex or something like that.
[end side conversation]
Mobile Homes.  You rent the space your home is on.
2007-05-11 14:15:52
topal63
. . .
+533|7165

blisteringsilence wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
The few.

[begin side conversation]
The concept of freehold doesn't really apply here. People either own their house and land, or they rent/lease it. there is no way for someone to own a house and not own the land its on, short of a condo complex or something like that.
[end side conversation]
I will dispute the free issue... how can it be freely owned when it is heavily taxed? Who are we renting our supposedly personally owned land from if not the government? If the government ultimately is the people - am I renting my property to myself?

Which few would you give this wealth to? A brown colored few or a white colored few or some other few? Who is "the few?"

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-11 14:19:10)

2007-05-11 14:26:04
Gen. Payne
Member
+50|7154|USA
Sounds a little like communsim.

Those who earn it should have it.
2007-05-11 17:53:48
bonedoc69
Member
+36|6858|Eugene, Oregon U.S.A.
The fact is if you gave it to everyone it would be a short time before the few who can manage it took it from those who cant. Then we all would have our trash taken away once again. Fear not.

The only way to truly distribute wealth is to have a system in place to constantly redistributes that wealth to the dumb asses who lose it.

Last edited by bonedoc69 (2007-05-11 18:09:18)

2007-05-11 18:22:11
Smithereener
Member
+138|6763|California
The few. Material wealth is what most people strive for anyway. It's that aspiration for wealth that helps fuel progress IMO. So by giving everyone wealth, there would barely be anyone that wants to make new things or technologies.
2007-05-11 20:01:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6852|North Carolina
Somewhere in between...  Inevitably, every society will have rich and poor.  However, some societies have a remarkably evenhanded distribution of wealth among the populace (Norway, Sweden, etc.).  To me, the ideal is having a society where the vast majority of people live well, and the richest people may live extravagantly but still don't hold much of the country's overall wealth.

Granted, such an ideal is nearly impossible to achieve in a country as large as America.
2007-05-11 20:08:07
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7209

Turquoise wrote:

Somewhere in between...  Inevitably, every society will have rich and poor.  However, some societies have a remarkably evenhanded distribution of wealth among the populace (Norway, Sweden, etc.).  To me, the ideal is having a society where the vast majority of people live well, and the richest people may live extravagantly but still don't hold much of the country's overall wealth.

Granted, such an ideal is nearly impossible to achieve in a country as large as America.
Compare Norway to the US for example.  The US immigration rate is 3.10 migrants/1,000 population.  Norway is about 1.74 migrants / 1,000 population as of a few years ago.  When everyone is basically the same, you have less issues with people coming over without a dime.
2007-05-11 20:39:20
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7119|Colorado

CameronPoe wrote:

Many, obviously.
Too anyone able to acquire it, obviously.
2007-05-11 22:32:17
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7149|Little Rock, Arkansas

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Bracket heavy post here!

If you suddenly had to chose (hypothesise whatever situation would force this) between giving material wealth to everyone (I'm thinking freehold house & land, a million bucks, three cars, the western dream) and giving it to a few (who would presumable know how to manage it better), what would you choose?
The few.

[begin side conversation]
The concept of freehold doesn't really apply here. People either own their house and land, or they rent/lease it. there is no way for someone to own a house and not own the land its on, short of a condo complex or something like that.
[end side conversation]
Mobile Homes.  You rent the space your home is on.
I don't know about Cali, but around here, most mobile homes sit on land that is freely owned. A "trailer park" is a rarity, compared to the number of mobile homes people live in.

topal63 wrote:

I will dispute the free issue... how can it be freely owned when it is heavily taxed? Who are we renting our supposedly personally owned land from if not the government? If the government ultimately is the people - am I renting my property to myself?
And again, I don't know about Floridia, but here, property taxes are quite reasonable. Not to mention, they actually go for purposes that you and I can see. They pay for schools, and police departments, and fire departments, and other public services. As opposed to my income tax, which goes to things like sugar subsidies and the national helium reserve.
2007-05-11 23:29:26
Marinejuana
local
+415|7032|Seattle
how about none?

You should all realize that material wealth is not granted with hard work. Most rich people have monopolies of one kind or another.

The American dream is a joke. the % of people that move from poverty to wealth in our country or anywhere is utterly miniscule. Did you know that black people are imprisoned at a rate many times higher than white people (about 8 times more), but crime rates (not arrests or convictions) are within a few percent of each other? You have a better chance of going to prison as a black male in the US than college.

Now if any of you are racist enough to claim that this impoverished class deserves or earns such a status, go ahead. I know you people are out there. I wish I could strip you of your inherited wealth so that you could see how much your "hard work" is really worth on the world market. LOL.

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-541.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o-02.htm
Mauer, Marc (1999) race to incarecerate. The New Press, New York.

Its silly to ask whether we should give great wealth to the few or the many because obviously there isn't enough wealth for the many, and obviously more than a few people deserve wealth.

How about we pose a more intelligent question: should everybody be able to eat? The answer is yes.
2007-05-12 00:12:02
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7149|Little Rock, Arkansas

Marinejuana wrote:

how about none?

You should all realize that material wealth is not granted with hard work. Most rich people have monopolies of one kind or another.

The American dream is a joke. the % of people that move from poverty to wealth in our country or anywhere is utterly miniscule. Did you know that black people are imprisoned at a rate many times higher than white people (about 8 times more), but crime rates (not arrests or convictions) are within a few percent of each other? You have a better chance of going to prison as a black male in the US than college.

Now if any of you are racist enough to claim that this impoverished class deserves or earns such a status, go ahead. I know you people are out there. I wish I could strip you of your inherited wealth so that you could see how much your "hard work" is really worth on the world market. LOL.

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-541.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o-02.htm
Mauer, Marc (1999) race to incarecerate. The New Press, New York.

Its silly to ask whether we should give great wealth to the few or the many because obviously there isn't enough wealth for the many, and obviously more than a few people deserve wealth.

How about we pose a more intelligent question: should everybody be able to eat? The answer is yes.
If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about going to jail. Just a thought.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard