3 ms·

I don't agree with that. I definitely think the super rich should have a huge portion of their wealth redistributed, but giving it directly to people is a bad

I don't agree with that. I definitely think the super rich should have a huge portion of their wealth redistributed, but giving it directly to people is a bad use. I think it would be better to invest in solid infrastructure, education, healthcare, affordable housing, rehab, crime reduction, etc. so that everyone has a legit chance of improving their standard of living. There are some really hard, poverty skewed cultural problems that need to be solved and simply giving people money isn't going to do that. The benefit of investing in all of those infrastructure related things is that it creates jobs for people that want them. Hopefully enough people fight their way out of poverty that the next generation will have people with the knowledge base and skillset to improve things even more. I honestly don't think we're going to get a solution to poverty, petty crime, etc. until we're able to engage a lot more people that have lived in that world. Our supposed "leaders" just don't understand it well enough to come up with viable solutions. The biggest hurdle is filling the government with people that actually care and want to improve the world as a whole. I don't know if that'll every happen :-(

kiba 5y ago
Giving cash directly does work, but it is a part of a solution in resolving a larger problem, like getting out of the car dependent suburbia schema that is considered unsustainable.
- donmcronald 5y ago
  It's dependent on the person you're giving money to. Giving a drug addict money won't make a difference for anyone except the drug dealer that's going to end up with the cash.
  - rabidrat 5y ago
    And the person they don't steal from to get the money to get their fix?
  - xapata 5y ago
    That drug dealer spends money. Cash flow makes the economy work. Give cash to a rich person and they make a bet on what they think people will buy. Consolidate the wealth and we're back to central planning / command economy.
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    In the aggregate, drug usage is not enough of a problem for distributing money to not be of massive benefit to the poor. Nor is it enough of a problem to financially or morally justify the various schemes people have come up with to cut off drug addicts financially or to discourage drug usage by paying them in scrip. Giving money to everybody blindly with the awareness that statistically some will waste their money is better than any alternative.
  - antifa 5y ago
    Does it really depend? Paying taxes + low income housing + free drugs + drug addiction clinics > me or my children getting stabbed by a desperate addict.
eli_gottlieb 5y ago
> I don't agree with that. I definitely think the super rich should have a huge portion of their wealth redistributed, but giving it directly to people is a bad use. Why? It was working people who created that wealth.
- donmcronald 5y ago
  I don't think the .01% have contributed even .01% of the work, so they definitely don't deserve 99.99% of the gains. Being super rich and using that advantage to usurp all the productivity gains of the whole world doesn't make them working people. The working people are the ones that actual do the work, not the ones that control the capital. Things like Jeff Bezos getting a $500 million yacht make me sick. What kind of resources does that take? How many lifetimes of work go into it? How many schools could you build instead? Hospitals? Houses? How about spending $500 million dollars building water filtration systems for developing countries? No one should be allowed to squander resources and labor like that until every person on the planet has food to eat, clean water to drink, and a safe place to sleep.
ta988 5y ago
That is what taxes could be for. But super wealthy not only dodge them (witg legal and non legal ways) but they also use their power to influence lawmaking to reduce their tax exposure even more. It is just gangster capitalism.

kiba 5y ago

Giving cash directly does work, but it is a part of a solution in resolving a larger problem, like getting out of the car dependent suburbia schema that is considered unsustainable.

donmcronald 5y ago
It's dependent on the person you're giving money to. Giving a drug addict money won't make a difference for anyone except the drug dealer that's going to end up with the cash.
- rabidrat 5y ago
  And the person they don't steal from to get the money to get their fix?
- xapata 5y ago
  That drug dealer spends money. Cash flow makes the economy work. Give cash to a rich person and they make a bet on what they think people will buy. Consolidate the wealth and we're back to central planning / command economy.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  In the aggregate, drug usage is not enough of a problem for distributing money to not be of massive benefit to the poor. Nor is it enough of a problem to financially or morally justify the various schemes people have come up with to cut off drug addicts financially or to discourage drug usage by paying them in scrip. Giving money to everybody blindly with the awareness that statistically some will waste their money is better than any alternative.
- antifa 5y ago
  Does it really depend? Paying taxes + low income housing + free drugs + drug addiction clinics > me or my children getting stabbed by a desperate addict.

eli_gottlieb 5y ago

> I don't agree with that. I definitely think the super rich should have a huge portion of their wealth redistributed, but giving it directly to people is a bad use. Why? It was working people who created that wealth.

donmcronald 5y ago
I don't think the .01% have contributed even .01% of the work, so they definitely don't deserve 99.99% of the gains. Being super rich and using that advantage to usurp all the productivity gains of the whole world doesn't make them working people. The working people are the ones that actual do the work, not the ones that control the capital. Things like Jeff Bezos getting a $500 million yacht make me sick. What kind of resources does that take? How many lifetimes of work go into it? How many schools could you build instead? Hospitals? Houses? How about spending $500 million dollars building water filtration systems for developing countries? No one should be allowed to squander resources and labor like that until every person on the planet has food to eat, clean water to drink, and a safe place to sleep.

ta988 5y ago

That is what taxes could be for. But super wealthy not only dodge them (witg legal and non legal ways) but they also use their power to influence lawmaking to reduce their tax exposure even more. It is just gangster capitalism.