Should India give the rich a decent amount of money, and distribute the rest to the poor?
Shouldn't the world be fair. For example in India there are so many people like 2 billion, and there's probably like a 1,000 rich people who own billions of dollars in their bank accounts. Should India stop giving these business makers, actresses, actors, models, singers, or whatevere that makes people rich that much money? Should the world be more fair and give the poor more of a chance by giving them a decent amount of money that the rich just hoard in their banks, or spend on mansions or something? Should everyone have am equal chance for having a succesfull, and happy life? Should where you get in life not matter on if your parents are rich or poor? Should it just be fair and equal, so everyone can live a happy life? What do you think?
Yes, that would make it fair.
Side Score: 9
|
No, rich rules!
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
I think the world should be fair. So I say yes, I think rich people deserve to be rich, but the poor people never had a chance. So I think it would be best to give everyone chances, and distribute money that the rich people would get to the poor. Side: Yes, that would make it fair.
|
3
points
If all the money in the world was pooled, then divided equally among everyone, soon afterwards the former rich would be wealthy again and the poor would be moaning about the fat cats. Regardless of how often you repeated that process the outcome would be the same. Those enterprising entrepreneurs at the top of the ''food chain'' make the running whilst the ''sheeple'' follow and get the crumbs off the rich man's table. If there weren't any industrious, risk taking men of vision and enterprise, there wouldn't be any crumbs for the ''sheeple'' to feed on. Whilst your communist sentiments may be noble, they don't work in practice, as has been proven time and time again. Side: No, rich rules!
1
point
i can agree that some or even many of the rich would remain rich after such a distribution, but as you said, these are risk taking men of vision who undertake such risks at calculation or instinct, but at most they will still only have a chance at success. your suggestion of the rich being rich time and time again is extremely unlikely. say there are 1 million rich people in a country. say their chance of getting there was 1/2. to get the same people once after a reroll is a 1/2^1m, or whatever calculator i've tried so far lazily tells me as 1/infinity. on a million digit calculator you need to pass over 200,000 0's before you get a number after the decimal point. so saying all will succeed again is slightly overestimating. of course, different entrepreneurs will have different chances of success based on what they have/n't prepared. in addition to only having chances of success, an entrepreneur can only make money with money ("something does not come from nothing." - law of conservation of unfair monetary system). without any capital you can't do shit. without reserves funds and potential to use them, banks won't loan anything meaningful. this is why poverty is a pit that few escape and many fall into. people take your risks and have your vision and they fail, prey to circumstance. they end up poor and stuck. public schools help greatly as a way out, but fees for university (in uk at least) are ridiculously high, which is where the most meaningful qualifications are earned. sure, a high school GCSE in whatever may be as far as you can get, which will earn you at best as a sales manager, electrician, estate agent or chef (best paid) around £20,000-£30,000. which is not too bad, but not quite enough for a family of 3-4 and a mortgage. a distribution would mean that everyone has a starting point and equal (more or less) opportunity initially. this will inevitably lead to another large poor/rich value, as before reset, but can be fixed again with another wealth distribution. inheritance is another biggie. while i guess it can be motivating to work to amass a fortune so your children can be happy, but your odds of succeeding are far greater. an opportunity few receive. Side: Yes, that would make it fair.
The rich only get richer. Wealth redistribution alone means nothing. You would have to magically reset networks, education, school systems, job positions, and more. Someone has to keep the industries/economy going too. With a complete reset, things would be a whole lot different. Success requires hardwork, but also quite a bit of luck. Those with more opportunities succeed more often because they have more chances to get lucky. A reset of networks would mean equal opportunity. Education should speak for itself. All of this impossible. It is also difficult to imagine since everything would be different. Side: Yes, that would make it fair.
2
points
2
points
|