Hyperinflation mass shortages of goods.
More drugies and alcoholics wandering the streets.
More drugies and alcoholics wandering the streets.
What if all the vast wealth suddenly got distributed evenly among everyone?
- Thread starter Ghee Buttersnaps
- Start date
Not to mention, the wealth they received belonged to a benefactor who made a free will choice to distribute in that manner...it has/had nothing to do with the person deserving the receipt.
But at least we taught them 16th century literature and pre Calc in high school... who needs money mgmt education anyway?
No they couldn't.
Nobody is building houses anymore, so the ones that do exist are most likely not for sale.
Same with cars...can't by an inexpensive vehicle if nobody is making them.
What they really need to know, is how dudes can get knocked up without eggs!! lol
In this scenario everyone would have to give up all their major assets and everyone would get 400,000 or 600,000 (depending on if you split it between all Americans or just American adults) and would have buy new assets. So every house and vehicle would be for sale.
As far as buying an inexpensive vehicle . . . you buy used. I've never owned a new vehicle in my life and I'm 41. Even if you handed me a million dollars I doubt I would buy a new vehicle. New vehicles go down in value fast and even with a million I would not consider it insignificant.
Now like I said in this scenario given normal economics housing would go up in price even more because suddenly people who are renting or living with their parents who didn't have money to buy a house would suddenly have money and be in the housing market.
Vehicles on the other hand I think would either remain about the same price or new vehicles would go up in price while used go down. If everyone suddenly has 400,000 or 600,000 there is a good chance a lot of them would be trying to get a new car so used might not see many people buying them.
Explain that feeling that others need make less money to make you feel successful is the thought process of a weak constitution?
You contradict yourself. My entire premise is: I don't give a phuck what others do/make, and they shouldn't care what do. I chose to earn security for myself and my family and if that makes me weak in your opinion you cling to that.
hawkeyetraveler
HR All-American
Well if it wasn’t clear I disagree with the notion of a pure wealth transfer. However, I do agree that our system magnifies wealth inequality by making it easier for rich people like me to pay less taxes. Create a flat tax structure and ensure capital gains/income tax are paid on any transfers and we begin to solve the problem,
If you are rich, why would a flat tax on ordinary income result in you paying more taxes than a progressive tax rate?
The "Rich dont pay tax" only applies to the .1% or lower. The way these folks do it is to be paid in company stock and then borrow against it. That way they only pay minimal tax. Taxing capital gains at a higher rate will only go to hurt the middle to upper class, not the ultra rich. There are many other things you can do to depreciate your assets and write-off taxes that the common person can not take advantage of.
You can give it all away today if you prefer! Either drop a check to the state treasury or cash out and throw it in the wind on skid row!
they generally are from an IQ type intelligence perspective
Exceptions... but as a general rule...
Our society rewards brain power in a way that it didn't used to. (Industrial revolution and higher ed machine did that)
If you look at the top 10 poorest states and the Bottom 10 IQ states you will find that they are pretty much the same
Try comparing the bottom 10 and top 10 on an individual level and get back to me
No it rewards knowing the right people growing up in the right family more than that.
Who your mommy and daddy were has much more influence on your income than any measure of intelligence.
That's why our extremely stable genius is wealthy.
Ehhh... you may want to research this more.
Intelligence is highly heritable. Your parents matter in more ways than one.
Yep. Very often there’s a good reason why poor people stay poor.
The lottery winners who lose it all are but one example.
The problem with that assumption is that should have theoretically held true in the past when our economic mobility was much much higher.
Right now our economic mobility is the lowest it's been in close to 100 years if not more.
Yes. I'm coming to visit your single wide. Please provide address of trailer park.
Interesting that the first comment was mostly liked by liberals, while the second comment was mostly liked by conservatives.
I recognize that the likes for the serf proposal are more amusement than agreement - at least I hope so - but still.
At the time I was annoyed that people like me - who didn't need them - got stimulus checks. Later on when the costs and inconveniences of the pandemic hit me harder than expected, I wanted another one.
I disagree to some extent. I'm not disagreeing that in 50 years or so there wouldn't be inequality. . . Shoot you would start to see wealth inequality almost immediately.
The extent of wealth inequality that we have now would not be the same in 50 years. Some Wealth inequality is something that is natural to any free market system. The extent of wealth inequality that we have however is the direct result of choices, mostly political choices but some cultural choices as well that we have made over the last 40 to 50 years.
A sudden re-do would give a lot of people a chance that they just never had previously. It would also take away from other people massive advantages they obtained because of who their parents were. The question isn't how could we pull off this sudden one time equalization of things. The question is what can we do so that wealth inequality in the future is reduced and economic mobility is increased. Both of which things we are towards the absolute rock bottom of the westernized world in. (Highest wealth inequality and lowest economic mobility)
The standard conservative response is that in just a few years all the very same people would be back on top.
If we did nothing other than redistribute wealth, without changing the rules and practices of wealth accumulation and consolidation, then, yeah, we would probably be back to high levels of inequality in 50 years, if not a good bit faster.
Nevertheless, I say give it a try and see what happens.
Are you channeling Lute? Or maybe you're the Lute handle that permits using words like "hell"?
