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.

  • Apr 16 2013: Mike,
    I think that Stephan is right. Let me explain further about the conditions I laid out in the last part of my posting. The first condition is that the class of people, who contribute the building of the wealth of the nations mentioned there, are also less greedy, not like those in Greece and France, etc. so that the workers in these countries had less exhobitant pays, vacations or pensions, and they don't strike frequently for more and more increase in benefits. I read some report that the wage and, especially, benefits for similar workers in Germany are less than that in France. The second is even more important. By their choice (democratically) they choose the government that is capable of taking their taxes and distribute them reasonably equally to the poor, but not those who are, too lazy but capable to work.(but there are relatively few of those deadbeat in these countries anyway). If the government doesn't carry out its given responsibility, the contributing public could vote these bums out, because they are the contributors of the tax base who willingly want their taxes to be distributed to the poor and the unfortunate. In essence, in order to be successful, the majority of the contributors/workers/voters must be ethical and compassionate, but also are wise to select the good policy decision makers. You see, that's why I stated the the working ethics of the workers is the most important factor in the success of such "socialism" and "welfare" system.
    I also want to say that we probably don't have the same proportion of wise voters/workers here like them in Sweden, etc. You can assess the reason by yourself why it is so.
    • thumb
      Apr 16 2013: Bart, I love the world you live in, unfortunately it isn't mine.
      Remember when Romney was criticized about the 47%? He never explained what he said. The guy had some good ideas, he may have been a financial wizard, but couldn't sell water in the desert. the 47% he was speaking of were the 47% who were buying into the notion that the federal government was the answer to all the problems our society faces. The 47% who buy into the idea, regardless of their economic status etc. I had to laugh when the ruckus came out about the poor. The 47% included Hollywood moguls and other well heeled "liberals".

      I am know that there are great social problems out there, Illness, poverty, poor education, etc. ad nauseum. I know that the federal government is wholly ill equipped to deal with these problems. That's a another entire conversation. I believe that there is a group of people in the US that believe that they are intellectually superior and they should be in charge of redistribution of wealth and resources to the people of the United States. They want the people to vote into power their cronies and supporters of these political philosophies.
      Once in control, they will be able to bring their idea of equality to all of America. They are 47% there.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.