Should the government take from the rich and give to the poor?

Question

Should the government take from the rich and give to the poor?

Answer 1

liberal baiting?

it is to laugh

taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the OIL COMPANIES...

the record profits OIL COMPANIES.

so what are you referring to?

Answer 2

Yes the government should take from the rich and give to the poor, that is the best policy for stopping people from going hungry with out food

Answer 3

No, they should follow the fricken Constitution

Answer 4

Better then the other way around. Like the Republicans want.

Answer 5

You should never take anything from anyone. That is called stealing and stealing is criminal, sinful, immoral, whatever you want to call it. The government should not be controlling the people's lives. The people should be controlling the government.

Answer 6

h**l no.  Why would you take from people who have worked hard and done something with their life and give it to people who have done the exact opposite?  Some may be born into better situations than others, but all Americans are born with the opportunity to succeed.

Answer 7

That is the core belief of the Democratic party!

Answer 8

Stealing is wrong, its even worse if the government does it, that's institutionalized robbery.

Answer 9

no,thy should take from anyone and give to anyone else,rich ,poor,or in between. they should follow the constitution and nothing else

Answer 10

No.

That's the Democratic Party way, and the thinking of blithering idiots that destroys societies.

Answer 11

As a democracy here are many ways this is already the case.

In Australia we have a free public health system, low income public housing, and dental care, there is unemployment benefits, disability pensions, old age pensions and many other ways that people in our societies are receiving support.

Of course one could ague that as the earth itself is for all our  common welfare, the injustice that causes this dependency on human pay outs, is generations of theft and persecution, and unlawful OWNERSHIP of the earth. So the recipients recieve $ for their discomfort and dis inheritances.

So do the exploiting countries have a responsibility to those they have exploited. ???

I think so, rather than believeing in the rights of the survival of the fittest, spuring on resentment and hate resulting in fighting and  wars and more pain..

It's rather a big price the human family pays for selfishness and fear of scarcity, when the truth is there is plenty to go round if it's shared.

At least now Bill Gates and others are taking it on themselves to spend their $Billions for the good of others less fortunate.

Maybe this lead will help the1st world Govts to stop spending $160million an hour on war and start to direct it to clean up the environmental mess that war has inflicted on this small planet. Especially on all of the earths poor and the other lifes.

Answer 12

If in a wise and intelligent way, then yes.

If the government took from the poor and gave to the rich it would be unfair because the poor need money much more than the rich who have more than enough.  

If the gov. didn't do enough "balancing" acts, then the rich would form an aristocracy and have "dynasties" in which they would oppress everyone else.  The talented poor person would have to work much harder than the rich people (who are born into wealth and power and having connections with famous people) and probably wouldn't earn as much as the not-so-talented heirs to a dynasty who tend to have everything handed to them.  The poor person would have to put a lot of effort and have talent to rise, but the rich person wouldn't need that as much to just maintain the status quo.

If the gov. took from the rich and gave to the poor, the rich people (since they have more than enough) would feel less of an impact to their pocketbooks (relatively) than a poor person who is struggling just to pay for basic living expenses.

Answer 13

All rich have not become rich only by their individual efforts without the support directly or indirectly from lots of other people. A farmer, a cobbler, agriculturist, construction labourer, house maids and on and on. Many of them does a lot of hard work,yet they remain poor. Hard work does not always make you rich. It has to  be mixed with a fair amount of luck, recommendations, support and above all will from Almighty God.

Laziness is one of the factors for poverty but not the only. one. Many lazy individuals are rich. Infact if you collect the data from around, it will be that  the lazy individuals will be more rich than the hardworking.

The super rich definitely have with them,much more than they can spend. Lot of money thus will be hoarded in the banks which inturn will be lended to the poor people and countries on interest.

Compulsory charity will be fiercly opposed by the  ungodly, and the godly people does  not need legislations to donate.

Such legislations will only help those God fearing people, who have become less godly under the influence of the materilistic culture.

Answer 14

It kinda depends, if those rich people were one dirt poor and through hard work achieved a fortune, why should people who haven't done anything to deserve they money receive anything?

On the other hand, even if all the money the rich people had was given to all the "poor" people, they would only get so much per person - to be fair.

Answer 15

No. Would anyone want to work hard or try to become successful or do something innovative if their wealth was just given to someone who didn’t earn it? It’s nice thought but not practical. Capitalism is a necessary evil. Now should we help people who are no capable of helping themselves? I think so.