TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.

Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 4 2013: I am a fan of mutual sharing of burdens,so in theory I would willing absorb the shock of capital ventures,perhaps my stock portfolio is this sharing. Yet I am suspect that the wealthiest of individuals amongst us can show a definitive investment in culture. I read in history where much wealth was accrued that these historic figures committed genocidal crimes as the basis for their monumental wealth...then they distributed their wealth through appointments to their relatives,and all who would exclusively work for their personal benefit. Many of the current wealthiest are the direct traceable receipients of this huge advantage(fill in thousands of names...popes,kings,queens,slave owners,sugar barons,ect.....You may wish to think this is an outdated cultural phenomenom ,but almost every institution of grandeur has a donation of wealth stemming from the death of cultures robbed,raped and genocided. So in the spirit of WEALTH sharing ,the poker chips earned illegally throughout history create an unfair basis that mitigates an advantage towards a type of individual that would only be a type of man that is congruent to this robber baron economic system. MY evidence that it is a biased system is that if any race,or type of man attempts to inspire a humanistic theme to economics(fill in the word holistic) it is deemed naive ..and we MURDER them.9Martin Lutjer,Ghandi,Marcus Garvey,ect.which reveals ,this idea is carefully removed every time it is underconsideration...no one kills all the scoundrels..just individuals who inspire a less exclusive approach to resource experience. SO the problem is that the question has itself has an assumption that the foundation of our economy self adjusts for this continued advantage gained through theft.,genetic lineage,white supremacy policies,and generally ganging up as groups to block others wealth development
    • Apr 4 2013: I won't pretend to have as much experience in this as you, but are these "elect" few really that big a deal? I've certainly heard of them but didn't realize they might be so cancerous to our economy. I was thinking more along the lines of heavily taxing the "rich" who make over $200,000-300,000. That's a small amount compared to, i think, the rich you are talking about. Why not reappropriate amorally gained funds from the past through special taxes and start fresh with a more democratic system? Is that what you would suggest?
      • thumb
        Apr 5 2013: I spend alot of time just collecting the data on the groups who as a child I was taught to respect...relearning history is weary depressing at times...and the effect of ill gotten gains is seen in many quarters as insignificant...regardless of who was killed or robbed...Our current economic system is based on these examples of wealth collection.So in fact these robber barons are seen often as heroes or iconic figures...to be envied or admired...they are role models...so to state they are few and insignificant is understating what generates our collective behaviour. Yet...your idea of taxes for ill gotten gains seems logical and just and would remove a large part of the unethical content of the economic universe...now watch all the intelligent individuals say that such a reversal of wealth is impossible...while if im late with my payments..I would lose my house...This drop in fiscal accountability has always worked for the group who created the game

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.