Wealth redistrubution

[hemet dennis]

I saw that 1% of kids have a 3.8 GPA or higher so I think we should take 15% of their grade and give it to the other 99%. Don't you think that would be more fair ?

 

[Fowl_Odor002]

I saw that 1% of kids have a 3.8 GPA or higher so I think we should take 15% of their grade and give it to the other 99%. Don't you think that would be more fair ?

why is my welfare paycheck always late?
don't make me get angry - you wouldn't like me when I'm angry

 

[Matthew3590]

I saw that study done at a liberal college. But it was only the 4.0 students that were affected and then they would redistribute it towards the ones that are failing. All of the ones interviewed said no and that it was nothing like the real deal when it comes to actual money. Funny how they change their minds when it actually affects them.

 

[CityGirlintheCountry]

Read this in an email. Don't know if it actually happened, but it is an interesting read.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.​

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.​

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.​

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!​

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.​

 

[AquaEyes]

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

 

[duckinnut]

Read this in an email. Don't know if it actually happened, but it is an interesting read.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.​

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.​

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.​

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!​

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.​

It doesn't get simpler than that. Problem being is the persons who want wealth redistribution would fail the to see the connection or understand the principle. If you want more wealth go out and EARN IT! But highly don't recommend chicken raising a viable way to prosperity.

 

[booker81]

Like AquaEyes posted, a legend/non-true story, but it's an interesting anecdote.

I work hard, and make more money. I don't work harder to make less.

 

[Capvin]

Helmet...I must say that in your case I can see that it makes sense to you to compare kids grades to wealth. And I mean that sincerely and I want you to continue to believe that because it is important that some people continue to believe fantastic things. Reality is that in 2007 only 20% of the people in the United States owned or controlled 85% of all of the wealth. That leaves only 15% of the wealth for the rest of the 80% of the people. It has gotten progessively worse since 2007. If you still live in the pre Victorian age then that kind of disparity in wealth between the classes is fine and acceptable. If you are at all a thinking and sensible person you will immediately say.."hey, something is wrong with that." It does not mean that the wealth should be redistributed. That is what you learned by listening to Glen Beck. No, as it is we have almost eliminated the middle class in this country and if you need and explanation of why that is a bad thing, then you would not be able to understand it in any event. What is needed is more oportunities for the middle class to obtain wealth and if that does not happen, then the middle class is gone and so is this country. PS, my grade point average was pretty high so I am sure that I could lend you some of it.

And that story of the ficticious professor (please dont tell me you think that is real also); is is simple if you can define simple as dumb, like in simpleton.

 

[thaiturkey]

Helmet...I must say that in your case I can see that it makes sense to you to compare kids grades to wealth. And I mean that sincerely and I want you to continue to believe that because it is important that some people continue to believe fantastic things. Reality is that in 2007 only 20% of the people in the United States owned or controlled 85% of all of the wealth. That leaves only 15% of the wealth for the rest of the 80% of the people. It has gotten progessively worse since 2007. If you still live in the pre Victorian age then that kind of disparity in wealth between the classes is fine and acceptable. If you are at all a thinking and sensible person you will immediately say.."hey, something is wrong with that." It does not mean that the wealth should be redistributed. That is what you learned by listening to Glen Beck. No, as it is we have almost eliminated the middle class in this country and if you need and explanation of why that is a bad thing, then you would not be able to understand it in any event. What is needed is more oportunities for the middle class to obtain wealth and if that does not happen, then the middle class is gone and so is this country. PS, my grade point average was pretty high so I am sure that I could lend you some of it.

And that story of the ficticious professor (please dont tell me you think that is real also); is is simple if you can define simple as dumb, like in simpleton.

A voice of reason in the wilderness!

Before this thread is locked, I would like to say that anyone who thinks Obama is a Socialist needs to do some serious self-education.

 

[hemet dennis]

Helmet...I must say that in your case I can see that it makes sense to you to compare kids grades to wealth. And I mean that sincerely and I want you to continue to believe that because it is important that some people continue to believe fantastic things. Reality is that in 2007 only 20% of the people in the United States owned or controlled 85% of all of the wealth. That leaves only 15% of the wealth for the rest of the 80% of the people. It has gotten progessively worse since 2007. If you still live in the pre Victorian age then that kind of disparity in wealth between the classes is fine and acceptable. If you are at all a thinking and sensible person you will immediately say.."hey, something is wrong with that." It does not mean that the wealth should be redistributed. That is what you learned by listening to Glen Beck. No, as it is we have almost eliminated the middle class in this country and if you need and explanation of why that is a bad thing, then you would not be able to understand it in any event. What is needed is more oportunities for the middle class to obtain wealth and if that does not happen, then the middle class is gone and so is this country. PS, my grade point average was pretty high so I am sure that I could lend you some of it.

And that story of the ficticious professor (please dont tell me you think that is real also); is is simple if you can define simple as dumb, like in simpleton.

Would you say the wealth gap started to grow in the 60's with L.B.J.'s great society ? When taking from the middle class and up to redistribute to the poor. Do you think that the middle class started to not try as hard ?
You seem to be fixed on where we are instead of how we got here.
Please try to keep this polite.
And it's Hemet