[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]
That's not the cornerstone of a welfare state, that's the cornerstone of a socialist state where private property is not respected.
The only way that works as you describe it is if you believe that a person's money is not their own. If you do, then you have no right to take it. But if you believe what a person makes belongs to the government first and the government allows someone to keep it that's the only way your comment makes any sense. And since in your world a person's money belongs to the government you have to believe that ANYTHING a person has the government has a right to.
Money is personal property, no different than a person's house or car. If someone has 3 cars, for you to not be a hypocrite, you must believe the government has a right to step in and take one or more of those cars away and give them to someone who doesn't have a car.
The truth is you are a petty, jealous person who believes you have a right to have a say in what someone else has. You do not. Get out of other peoples wallet.