This house would take from the rich and give to the poor

Does taking from the rich to satissfy the economic burden of the poor justified? Or is it an economic and social disaster waiting to happen?
I do not believe that money and personal property should be taken from or stolen from the rich and given to the poor.
The "poor"--working poor, homeless, low-income families struggling--they need assistance, and if I have an abundance, I believe that everyone does well when everyone does well. I am willing to give a portion of what I have--gifts, taxes, donations--to those in need.

Currently, the "rich"--corporations and others, in effect "take" from the poor, that is, pay the lowest wages possible, deny workers health care and other benefits. This taking from the poor is legal and allowed, and here in the U.S. is actually considered a good thing, according to free market capitalism.

Occupy. We are the 99%

This house would take from the rich and give to the poor

Yes because... No because...

Everybody needs the rich.

Terribly sorry, I posted this on the wrong side of the argument.

Humans are ultimately self interested beings. They will only spend time and effort in things if it benefits themselves in some way.

To be rich, even in the smallest sense of the word, is the ultimate incentive for innovators and creative thinkers who can make real differences for the rest of us. Doing it for 'the greater good' just won't cut it.

This house would take from the rich and give to the poor

Yes because... No because...

Socialism and Communism have tried and failed to do the same thing by putting everyone on the same level.

The idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not new. It has been tried before by various means, including through socialsim and communism, with disastrous results. What happens eventually is that, if anything, people become equally poor and miserable, with those governing them becoming more tyrannical - thus the hundred years or so of communist tyranny and mass genocide. Think of Stalin and Mao - millions upon millions of their own people murdered. Despite the proven failure of these systems again and again, there are people who continue to insist that communism can work if only the right leader, or group of leaders, can be put in place. Given the flawed nature of man, these people are deluded and can't see that it will never work. The best system in the world, although not perfect, continues to be the one as set forth in our Constitution of the United States. It is the one that allows for the greatest liberty of the individual to live up to his/her greatest potential, who, through his/her own efforts and acting in his/her own self-interest, and whether or not through generosity or default, benefits not only him/her self, but others.

This house would take from the rich and give to the poor

Yes because... No because...

Class Warfare

This act of taking from the rich and giving to the poor actually results in class warfare which creates a society which is weak. This could jeopardize the economy and stability of the country

This house would take from the rich and give to the poor

Yes because... No because...

I disagree with the assertions that the debate topic makes

When a company hires an individual, it is in effect a transaction. A transaction by definition must be mutually beneficial for both sides. The idea that they "deny" workers healthcare is fallacious because by definition they do not owe the worker anything. It is an agreed upon contract that both parties must agree to.

They do not pay the lowest wage possible, they pay what can be negotiated. If they paid the lowest wage possible you would see a slow decline of wages until the point where most jobs would be at the national minimum wage. This is definitely not the case.

Debates > This house would take from the rich and give to the poor
Category: