The rookie Hussein's long, lost cousin?
If you could axe a poll question, what would it be? Mine - how much of your income should go to people who don't work for a living?
BS; leading questions, sampling, source, manipulation...cannot confirm the way the poll was conducted. BS
When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of paul
There ya go! No argument against this poll!
“A majority, 60 percent, of Americans said society would be better off if the distribution of wealth were more equal”
There is nothing to stop many of them from distributing their own wealth if they wish to do so, except for their own reluctance to part with money. Some of the stingiest people I know are liberals.
Socialism is about smashing everybody down to the level of the lowest common denominator, except for the ruling elite and their dachas.
how much of your income should go to people who don’t work for a living?”
My vote - ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO. But then I am one of those old people who continues to work in order to provide for myself and my family.
Disregard my above post. I didn't catch this until I read it a second time. I'm surprised that 100% didn't support the thievery. We're talking Washington D.C. here. Only 60% is a good sign. There is hope.
The Constitution was written to prevent the theft of property of the few by the many.
Earn it or lie down in the street and die!!!!
No more welfare, food stamps, housing, or any other distribution by any government agency!!!
Personally, I’m more in favor of a fairer ‘work’ distribution as opposed to wealth.
When a union electrician works my weekend and holiday call shifts at the hospital, we can then ‘share the wealth’...oh...and if he wants to pitch in to contribute to my school loans, CME, malpractice and regulatory overhead and license fees, it would be appreciated.
Fairer?? What does that mean?
Does that mean everybody gets the same amount of income?
To me it is fairer if people get an even chance to prosper according to their ability and their efforts.
How about focusing on “Equality of Effort” instead of always focusing on “Equality of Results”.
Poll Question......how much of your income should go to people who don’t work for a living?
Same question!!...different perspective
I could redistribute every penny of wealth in America evenly and inside a year some would be in poverty and others would be rich.
It isn’t about redistributing the wealth, it;s about getting a work etthic.
Seriously, is this from The Onion?
Everything about this...the name of the author, the name of the publication, the name of the research institute....seems fake.
Fasten your seat belts and hold on tight. In a re-focused effort to save “the One who we have been waiting for,” the MSM is obviously gearing up until the 2012 election with a relentless full-court press of Marxist-style lies and half-truths hoping for tsunami-like results .
The best way to change wealth distribution is oddly enough, *not* to change who possesses wealth, but how those who possess great wealth invest it.
Let’s look at some unusual axioms. Most anyone with over a mere $50k would be foolish not to invest it. For most people from even less than that to about $1m, their investments of choice are stocks and bonds.
However, those who have from about $10-$100m are pretty much overwhelmed trying to do their own investments, so they use mutual funds moving into hedge funds, which may be more profitable, but are also far safer. They have experts investing their money for them.
The problem really begins at about $100m+, because from there, the investment strategies become increasingly like gaming - gambling. And this is where things become a problem, both socially and in the economy as a whole.
So the best way of dealing with this problem is not to take away the gambler’s money, but to get them back into more sensible investment, that benefits everyone.
More than anything else, it needs to be simple enough for them to understand so that they could do it themselves, and is more oriented to them preserving their wealth rather than increasing it.
On a much smaller scale, an example of this is found in an eccentricity of the law in the state of Florida. By law, if a person is bankrupt in that state, their creditors cannot take their primary residence, be it a small condo or a multimillion dollar mansion. So wealthy people all over the US buy homes in Florida as *insurance* against personal economic catastrophe, such as losing a lawsuit.
They may almost never live there, and their house, or mansion, may never appreciate in value, but for them it is a good investment, as a form of insurance.
But if creativity could be our guide, to get the ultra-rich to use their money for some grounded purpose, or investment of tangible value to society, the economic disparity would not be so grotesque.
This is in no way oppressive or unfair, either.