5 ms·

Hypothetically, some form of wealth redistribution is necessary in a democratic society, otherwise the poor will vote to take the wealth for themselves.

• mod 12y ago
  I would say that hypothetically, no form is needed because the poor won't vote to take from others. In reality, though, it seems the poor will vote as much of it for themselves as they reasonably can. It's happening piecemeal here (in America).
  • Sir_Substance 12y ago
    They're doing an incredibly shitty job of it then. It would be more accurate to say the rich are voting just enough to the poor to prevent widespread active looting.
  • bduerst 12y ago
    In reality, the exact opposite is happening. In the U.S., wealth concentration is growing with the top 0.1%.
• r00fus 12y ago
  That, or as we're seeing today, the wealthy and corporations coopt all the discussion and essentially buy votes with "campaign financing".
• Frondo 12y ago
  To put it bluntly, no, the poor don't vote to redistribute--that's why they're still poor. It's the rich who've made it a practice and habit to grab whatever they can, whenever they can; excepting those who were merely born rich, that's why the rich are rich.
  • bduerst 12y ago
    That's circular reasoning. We have voted-in wealth distribution mechanisms today that have worked well enough to prevent the poor for voting for more. But it is exactly as you said, recent changes in campaign financing policy and PAC funding has made it easier for the wealthy to preserve their position.
    • Frondo 12y ago
      What? What's circular about it? The poor don't influence politics via campaign donations, the poor have less access to politicians. The poor don't take advantage of what little political influence they do have--they vote less, as well. The rich, on the other hand, use every influence at their disposal to enrich themselves. If the poor had a tenth the willingness to go out and exploit the system the rich do, we'd see a far more equitable distribution of resources than we do.
      • ekianjo 12y ago
        When you start debates with uber simplified words as "the poor" and "the rich", you end up with a sub-par debate with sub-par arguments.
        • calibraxis 12y ago
          One might say the same for such rules.
      • bduerst 12y ago
        >the poor don't vote to redistribute--that's why they're still poor. Why are they poor? They didn't vote to redistribute. Why didn't they vote to redistribute? Because they're still poor. I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that it's disingenuous to claim "poor people haven't tried because they're poor".
        • DrJosiah 12y ago
          I think that you have misread/misinterpreted what Frondo has said. Frondo said, "The X doesn't do Y, which is why they are still X." You say/interpret Frondo as saying, "The X doesn't do Y because they are X." What's the difference? Assume that a group of people have an expected group of behaviors. If they had a different set of behaviors, they could remove themselves from the group. But if they don't have those other behaviors, they aren't able to remove themselves from the group. Are they in the group because they are in the group (as you have been saying Frondo has been saying)? Or are they in the group because they don't have a set of behaviors to remove themselves from the group (as I interpret Frondo as saying)? In the context of poverty in the US, there are countless structural, cultural, behavioral, and just daily life practicalities of why rising above poverty is very difficult. While I don't agree that the lack of political motivation and clout are the only or primary reasons for continued poverty, I do agree they are substantial contributing factors.