Why are so many conservatives opposed to the redistribution of wealth?
Topic: Abortion research articles
April 25, 2019 / By Chenaniah Question:
It seems like they never want to to share what they have because they are racist and greedy! The other day, I read a news article that claimed a prestigious University had setup a computer model which would show the effect of redistributing wealth (see link). The study consisted of everyone in the USA being stripped of all their assets (including homes, land, etc.) The aggregate resources were equally divided amongst everyone in the US that was at least 18 years old. In other words, everyone started life with exactly the same assets, opportunities for employment, and education opportunities.
What do you think the results from the model showed after simulating a few years?
It showed that the people again fell into classes: low, middle, and upper!
- less than 1% of the people that started in the lower class (before redistribution) managed to move up into a higher class! That means 99% of them fell back to a sub-quality way of life.
- 97% of those starting in the middle class (before redistribution) ended up in the middle class again (the remaining 2% entered the wealthy class and 1% entered the lower class)
- 90% of those starting in the wealthy class (before redistribution) ended up back in the upper class (the remaining 8% fell into the middle class and 2% fell into the lower class)
I don't know about you, but those results looked pretty BOGUS to me! There is no way so many people would end up where they already are! I did some research and found that the Professor who managed the experiment opposes abortion so we know he is just biased because Obama is the President.
PLUS the experiment only redistributed the wealth ONCE. For it to work correctly, wealth must be redistributed at least annually!
Does anyone know of any experiments that provide accurate, non-biased results? The day when we are all equal is the day we all become free!
Best Answers: Why are so many conservatives opposed to the redistribution of wealth?
Alwin | 8 days ago
Do you want to work hard to make something for your family and have to give a portion of it to someone who wants to sit on their butt and get it for free? What part of that even makes sense?Why work hard to be the best you can if someone can be a drain on society and get a portion of it?
👍 164 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Why are so many conservatives opposed to the redistribution of wealth?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Abortion research articles
Originally Answered: Why are so many conservatives opposed to the redistribution of wealth?
Have you not learned anything from failed communist countries? Communism has been continuously proven to not work. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Think of it this way: If you were a successful businessman, but only made half of what you truly earned, would you work harder just to earn the same amount?
By the way: there have been numerous studies that have proven that liberals are less generous with their money than conservatives. Here's one of the studies below:
Many reasons. It doesn't work for one. Where its been tried ends up with the rulers becoming obscenely rich while the average person becomes very poor.
Human nature guarantees it won't work for long. There are wayyyyy too many people who would not work at all if they knew they could live off some other persons labor. Just look at our welfare system.
Besides, why should I or anyone work hard, if I'm just going to lose what I work for? No incentive=no results. As an example: ask everyone you know if they would keep going to work every day if they stopped getting a paycheck.
Our founding fathers understood human nature and that is why they made sure redistribution of wealth was not what this country was founded on. Interestingly, we became the most prosperous nation in history without redistribution of wealth. I'm not against those who have it helping out those less fortunate, but it should be strictly voluntary. I know people with wealth who have given to help others very generously. Do I now want to punish them by taking away what they worked for? Absolutely not.
There will always be wealthy people who are greedy and selfish and will not lift a hand to help anyone else, but they are usually unhappy people and will die unhappy people. But to punish all of them for the greed of a few is just insane.
👍 60 | 👎 7
Even IF the distribution took place yearly you would still end up with classes of people as no two people use money in the same manner. Once one person spent a penny the equalization would no longer be equal. Would you rather everyone be equally poor? which is another option for the redistribution of wealth. You know like the individuals who lived in the USSR when communism fell. It has been proved many times that the concept of redistribution of wealth does not support a nation nor does it create wealth and prosperity. The fact of the experiment model is merely that those with motivation and ability will succeed in redeveloping their wealth given the opportunity while those who wish to be dependent on the government will remain so, and remain at the status level they were. This model has been done several times with the same basic results as there is no way to ever ensure everyone has equal amounts of anything for more than a few minutes, hence redistribution can never work long term. This model also proves that a person's class has just as much to do with their determination and mindset as it does actual monies. Look at the people who lost everything in disasters, were given huge sums of money to rebuild, and are still standing with a hand out for more. Without proper training as to how to handle the money, most who failed before the distribution of funds will fail again within a short period.
👍 53 | 👎 6
People are against the redistribution of wealth because they don't want work while the lazy sit around and take advantage of their labor. People that believe in redistributing wealth are looters of the producers of the world. If you really believe in redistribution go out get a job and give away all your money to charity and let the rest of us do what we want with our labor/wealth!
Here are some questions for you:
1. If you knew that your wealth (aka the return for your labor) would be redistributed at the end of the year what motivation do you have for working any harder than you did the year before?
2. Why would you have to try to start a business?
3. Why would you try to grow a business?
4. Why would you even work?
5. What motivation would you have to produce anything if all your work would be given away to someone?
What "prestigious university" are you referring to?
Why would someone's opinion on abortion necessarily make them biased in creating a computer program?
Are you actually serious?
Have you ever had a job?
👍 46 | 👎 5
I guess how you look at spreading the wealth has a lot to do with whether you earned the wealth or whether you will be the recipient of the sweat off another person's brow. The first mistake is to measure people by their class. Society can not bestow class upon people. If people are supported by others, it doesn't change their class because they just become a statistic due to their acquired wealth being bestowed upon them by the government. They are guaranteed to remain in the low class without the incentive to use their talents to break the chains.
👍 39 | 👎 4
Wealth cannot be "redistributed" because it is not distributed in the first place. It is earned. Apply that idiot standard to anything else. How about in school we " Redistribute" the grade of A to the student who doesn't bother doing the work and gets a zero. Fifty and an F for both. Same principle in life. Let the slackers get what they earn and stay the Hell out of my wallet!
👍 32 | 👎 3
Your concept is a recipe for economic disaster, not to mention being immoral.
If government redistributed the wealth every year, there would soon be very little wealth to redistribute, because the productive members of society would have zero incentive to continue to work.
Such a kooky system is nothing more than the institutionalization of envy and covetousness.
👍 25 | 👎 2
Originally Answered: What's wrong with redistribution of wealth?
I think allowing people to keep the money they make does provide a powerful incentive for them to achieve great things.
Howver, when the distribution of wealth becomes excessively skewed in favor a small minority, which is the direction we'vee been headed for some time, I do think a certain amount of redistributive policy will greatly benefit the whole economy.
Because the economy does run on consumer spending. Well, the consumers have to have something to spend.
I think the motivation to achieve great things can survive such an occasional correction.