It should go as far and wide as possible to ensure the most opportunity to create even more wealth.
9%7 Votes
It should be concentrated to as few as possible. we will call them our masters. any opportunity must be given to only them.
38%30 Votes
We should let wealth spread naturally, but if it all gets stuck at the top, we need to unstick it and let it spread around.
14%11 Votes
I don't know.
40%32 Votes
It should go as far and wide as possible to ensure the most opportunity to create even more wealth.
9%7 Votes
It should be concentrated to as few as possible. we will call them our masters. any opportunity must be given to only them.
38%30 Votes
We should let wealth spread naturally, but if it all gets stuck at the top, we need to unstick it and let it spread around.
14%11 Votes
I don't know.
Male
Female
40%23 Votes
It should go as far and wide as possible to ensure the most opportunity to create even more wealth.
9%5 Votes
It should be concentrated to as few as possible. we will call them our masters. any opportunity must be given to only them.
41%24 Votes
We should let wealth spread naturally, but if it all gets stuck at the top, we need to unstick it and let it spread around.
10%6 Votes
I don't know.
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Option 3 is pure socialism. We should take it from the rich, and spread it around. It shocks me that people are OK with taking something other people have earned and giving it away... You are all no better than thieves.
so its not thievery to do the red one? take all the wealth, no matter where it comes from, and transfer it to the richest dozen or so families?
how do you distinguish between the two? one is taking and giving only to a select group, and the other is everybody chipping in and getting something back.
we've had enough of the stealling, and now its time to have us chipping in and all getting wealthier.
as for pure socialism, sarah palin gave out checks to every alaskan for the state's oil profits. isn't that stealing from the oil companies?
From who was it taken? The people at the top in the red example earned the money (or their family earned it in many cases). But the point is that the money was not taken from anyone, in most cases it was freely given in exchange for a good or service. That is what makes it different from the blue one.
In the blue one, you advocate taking the money from those who have rightfully earned it and redistributing it to those who have not earned it.
The Alaska deal has been in place for a long time, and it is not stealing because a contract was signed and agreed to for this money. If the Alaskan Police rolled into the Oil companies office and stole their money to distribute to the Alaskan people you would have an argument you could make.
There is no way for everyone to be wealthy, it just doesn't work. The best thing about Capitalism is that it rewards those who make the best decisions, and work hardest towards their goals.
It's the use of the money that makes it different. Government Taxation is designed to provide funds for the government to run. The government running smoothly and providing certain things (like the Military, Judges, Arbitration, oversight) are beneficial for everyone, including those who pay the most for it. Taking that same money and giving to people who did not earn it for things like Houses and Health Care does not benefit those the money is taken from.
People are more than willing to release some of their money to the government to pay for the things that assist their business, and their country of operation, to run smoothly. People are less willing to release their money to pay for Healthcare for immigrants, or to bail out some janitor who bought a 500000 dollar home on speculation.
it's time you played the game "monopoly." you realize they made that game as an educational tool... play a few times and maybe you'll notice a pattern.
Option 3 is pure socialism. We should take it from the rich, and spread it around. It shocks me that people are OK with taking something other people have earned and giving it away... You are all no better than thieves.
so its not thievery to do the red one? take all the wealth, no matter where it comes from, and transfer it to the richest dozen or so families?
how do you distinguish between the two? one is taking and giving only to a select group, and the other is everybody chipping in and getting something back.
we've had enough of the stealling, and now its time to have us chipping in and all getting wealthier.
as for pure socialism, sarah palin gave out checks to every alaskan for the state's oil profits. isn't that stealing from the oil companies?
From who was it taken? The people at the top in the red example earned the money (or their family earned it in many cases). But the point is that the money was not taken from anyone, in most cases it was freely given in exchange for a good or service. That is what makes it different from the blue one.
In the blue one, you advocate taking the money from those who have rightfully earned it and redistributing it to those who have not earned it.
The Alaska deal has been in place for a long time, and it is not stealing because a contract was signed and agreed to for this money. If the Alaskan Police rolled into the Oil companies office and stole their money to distribute to the Alaskan people you would have an argument you could make.
There is no way for everyone to be wealthy, it just doesn't work. The best thing about Capitalism is that it rewards those who make the best decisions, and work hardest towards their goals.
every time you pay a tax, that is then taken and given to somebody more wealthy than you, is an example of when wealth is being redistributed--upward.
it is all that has happened lately... and it is destroying the nation.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyNot exactly.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt's the use of the money that makes it different. Government Taxation is designed to provide funds for the government to run. The government running smoothly and providing certain things (like the Military, Judges, Arbitration, oversight) are beneficial for everyone, including those who pay the most for it. Taking that same money and giving to people who did not earn it for things like Houses and Health Care does not benefit those the money is taken from.
People are more than willing to release some of their money to the government to pay for the things that assist their business, and their country of operation, to run smoothly. People are less willing to release their money to pay for Healthcare for immigrants, or to bail out some janitor who bought a 500000 dollar home on speculation.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replyyet it constantly does.
and it gives it to those who already have even more.
is that fair?
The people who own that wealth should determine what happens with that wealth.
it's time you played the game "monopoly." you realize they made that game as an educational tool... play a few times and maybe you'll notice a pattern.