Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.
Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.
In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.
|
You still don't get it....
If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?
By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.
Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...
.... yeah, that's fair.