If wealth was democratically limited and shared, my family wouldn't be so poor. My mother would not have to care about meeting rent deadlines or regulate how much electricity we use. We would just live worry-free lives. Plus, all my friends and I can just do jobs we enjoy and get paid enough to keep living and not have to works as hard. I would not have to see my friends and parents cry because their economic lives are a mess. I also would not cringe every time I hear a famous person getting richer for doing absolutely nothing to society and buy six cars and three houses that they will never ever use in their lives. If wealth was shared, then there would be no gap between the rich and poor and no one would have to feel inferior. There would be no homeless people and no one would go hungry.
However, if wealth was shared, everyone would just get easy jobs and get paid the same. There would be no doctors, lawyers, or engineers. Some would even go without a job. Also, we cannot buy the things we want if we are just given what we need to survive. Finally, there would be more cheating and thefts because people want more that what others have.
Steven, I agree with you on the first paragraph. However, don't you think that there would be less crimes committed because everyone would have the same thing? Violence is committed in impoverished areas, but in this case there would be no such thing. Wouldnt you think that the crime rate would lower?
ReplyDeleteSteven,
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your first part of the post, but not quite the second. I know that is a common arguement when on the topic of the redistribution of wealth, but I don't really buy that arguement. I realize money is a big incentive to work hard and all that, but I don't think it's the only incentive. Also, in a more equitable society I feel there'd be less of a "dog eat dog world" mentality and peoples' values would be different and hopefully more compasionate towards others.