Consideration

Why is redistribution of wealth necessary? It is for human beings to live like human beings

Take money from the rich!

Don’t exploit us, common people, any further!

These voices were often heard when the consumption tax was raised in Japan.

This is a bit extreme, but I believe it stems from the idea of wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution means making sure that the money that rich people have goes to the poor.

For example, if two people go fishing and one person catches three fish and the other person catches none, the person who catches three fish will later share one fish with the person who did not catch any.

Very nice guy!

Well, the fishing example is just an analogy, but in reality, rich people have to compulsorily redistribute their wealth even if they don’t want to give it away.

Yes, currently, rich people are forced to take money in order to redistribute wealth.

From the rich person’s point of view.

‘I worked hard to earn this money, so let me spend it however I want!’

I don’t have any money to give to people who aren’t even trying!”

If a lot of money is going to be taken away from me anyway, I’m not going to work from the beginning.

There will be arguments such as.

I certainly understand what you mean, but I still believe that wealth redistribution is absolutely necessary for society.

I would like to explain in detail why I believe redistribution of wealth is necessary.

This world is ultimately a game of luck.

To begin with, the fundamental question is, “I worked hard to earn this money, so let me spend it however I want!” Why did successful people succeed who could say?

Was it perseverance? Were they smart? Was it because they had good contacts?

Conversely, why couldn’t someone who lives on welfare earn their own money?

Are they less capable? Is it because you were born and raised in a poor family?

What is the difference between those who have money and those who do not?

I think this way.

I think it is the difference of luck.

For example, in the example of a rich person who became successful because he was smart, we can say that he became rich because he was lucky enough to be born with the talent of being smart.

Patience is another example of a person who was lucky enough to be born with the character of perseverance.

Having good contacts is also a result of being lucky enough to have a personality that is sociable and able to build good relationships with people.

We can say that they succeeded because they were fortunate enough to have enough perseverance to keep working toward their goals while improving on their shortcomings.

On the other hand, a poor person can also be said to be poor because of the bad luck of being born with low ability or being born into a poor family.

In other words, it is a very empty statement, but ultimately, those who are currently rich were just lucky.

And those who are poor were just unlucky.

This kind of fatalistic thinking is very vain, but in any case, however, it is a strict fact that the qualities a person is born with have an immense impact on his or her life.

Hmmm, I don’t like that idea because it sounds like “the person’s fate is already decided” or something.

I don’t usually think that way either, and I believe that one’s destiny is in one’s own hands.
And the hardships that successful people have experienced are a fact of life.
But ultimately, it is also true that there are people who are born with physical and mental handicaps, while others are born into rich families, and many others have their life direction determined by things beyond their control.

Since this world is largely controlled by this “luck” that we have no control over, I believe that those who are lucky enough to be born with great qualities and become rich need to support those who are unlucky enough to be in a poor situation.

What if you were unlucky and had the opposite life?

I think it would be very painful and sad to be destitute and suffer for the rest of your life because of something you have no control over.

So I think that rich people need to support poor people as long as they have had such a risk themselves.

“Everything I earn is mine!” I don’t think this attitude is fair at all.

Successful people are those who say, “I got this far on my own! So let me do whatever I want!” I don’t think we should be conceited.

Without luck, they would not have been able to do anything in this world.

Does happiness level remain the same when annual income exceeds ,000?

Does happiness level remain the same when annual income exceeds $80,000?
According to the research of one economist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, “$80,000 per year is the peak of happiness.

What this means is that no matter how much your annual income is $200,000 or $1,000,000, your level of happiness does not change much when your annual income is $80,000.

Well, I guess the point is that if you have too much money, you can’t spend it that much, so once you have a certain amount of money, no matter how much it increases after that, it doesn’t make much difference.

So, even if a rich person earning $1 million were to take half of his money, he would still have $500,000 left over, so his sense of happiness would not change that much, would it? I think.

Well, I am not rich, so I honestly don’t know what that feels like.

Of course, as a general rule, I believe that you should receive the money you earn by working hard.

However, even if a person who earns a million dollars has $500,000 taken away for taxes, he still has $500,000 left over, so of course he has enough room to live well and to enjoy luxuries.

In fact, I think society would be richer as a whole if people with annual incomes at the $20,000 or $30,000 level were given that amount back.

We, the common people, would be quite happy with just a $100 increase in salary.

Rich people already experience a lot of “rewarding” happiness

In most cases, people who have more money than people make more money than people through what they like to do, what they are good at, and what they want to do.

I don’t think you can make that kind of money unless you continuously devote yourself to what you are good at, what you like to do, and what you want to do through your God-given abilities.

Looking at my acquaintances and celebrities, I feel that people who are making money are those who are doing what they love, what they are good at, and what they want to do.

When I look at these people, I feel that successful people do not need that much money.

Of course, they have the right to be extravagant, buying expensive cars, living in a nice house, and so on.

They have the right to spend the money they earn freely.

However, I think it is also a fact that rich people experience an incomparable sense of happiness called “satisfaction at the same time as money by doing what they like, what they are good at, and what they want to do.

What I am trying to say is that rich people experience both “money” and “satisfaction” through their work, and I think it is unfair and unbalanced in terms of happiness in their lives compared to many ordinary people who do not seem to feel much money and satisfaction.

I feel that if you are able to live a fulfilling life every day while feeling rewarded, you don’t need to be so extravagant.

If that is the case, I think it is important in terms of removing the inequality of happiness to give the money of those who enjoy money and satisfaction to those who are a little poorer in order to raise their standard of living.

Can reduce the incidence of crime

Poverty and crime are linked.

When people are poor, they are more likely to commit crimes.

Poor families are also more likely to be abusive, and if poverty continues to grow in this way, social unrest will continue to grow.

I used to be very poor at heart, so I can understand how people who are poor at heart can become involved in crime.

I am sure that those who have done bad things also had some kind of circumstances.
Of course, I can’t affirm this because they are doing something that is socially wrong.

So depending on the circumstances, any person can turn to crime……

In the past history, as the number of people living in poverty increased, incidents of theft and other crimes increased and social security deteriorated, which is why social security programs were started to solve the poverty problem.

It is only natural, because people who are in need of food have no choice but to steal other people’s food at the end of the day.

Therefore, I think it can be said that redistribution of wealth is necessary for a safe and prosperous society because it is an aspect of stabilizing social security by redistributing wealth and reducing the number of people who have to live in poverty tomorrow.

Also, supporting the poor will eventually lead to saving the lives of the rich.

In the French Revolution, poor citizens eventually executed the king.

Well, this may be a bit of an extreme example, but you never know what people will do when they are cornered.

By redistributing wealth, we can protect the lives of the common people and the rich, and stabilize society.

Necessary for a more prosperous society

In this society, there is what is called a “safety net.” For example, a person who starts a business, but the company goes bankrupt and he or she is in debt, that is not the end of his or her life; he or she can go bankrupt and receive welfare to survive.

As long as you live in today’s Japan, where wealth is redistributed and money is distributed to those who cannot afford to live, it is unlikely that you will starve to death.

And I’ve seen people living on cardboard, drinking and gambling in the daytime.

Not having to starve to death is a blessing when you think about it.

Thus, I believe that having an environment in which individuals can live in peace and be able to boldly take on challenges will be important for the growth of the economy.

If the situation is such that failure is directly linked to death even if one takes up a challenge, there will be extremely few people who will take up the challenge.

One economist who advocates wealth redistribution also said, “Only when a minimum level of survival is guaranteed can long-term planning, action, and challenge become possible. This is the need for redistributive policies to support growth.” After all, if we can take on bold challenges by believing that we will not die even if we fail, and if new services are created as a result of these challenges and the lives of our society as a whole become more affluent, then redistributing wealth It is very meaningful.

I believe that building a safety net through wealth redistribution is necessary for society in order to grow the economy and achieve a more prosperous society.

Conclusion

So far I have given my thoughts on why redistribution of wealth is necessary.

I believe that redistribution of wealth can be said to be necessary for people to be able to live like human beings.

I believe that redistribution of wealth is necessary for a society to avoid making individuals choose crime and suicide as much as possible due to poverty, and for each individual to live as fairly as possible regardless of his or her natural talents and environment.

If I were born very poor, while the world is full of rich people, I would be so, so sick of it!

Well, people are creatures who get angry when they see others happy when they are in a difficult situation.

Hmmm, I understand that….

I believe that a good society is one in which each person can live fairly and humanely.

By the way, I am not trying to denounce rich people, so please don’t misunderstand me.

I am not denying the existence of the rich in the slightest, since they are necessary for society and I have ambitions to become rich and do various things on a daily basis.

Well, this was a very serious “redistribution of wealth,” but thank you very much for your patience.

COMMENT

Your email address will not be published.

CAPTCHA