That depends on who it is redistributed to. If wealth were redistributed to individuals (say for example to make people's shares more equal), but remained privately owned and controlled by individuals, that would not be socialism. But if it were redistributed to collective ownership in any form, or retained in government ownership, or if its use were controlled by the government despite different assets nominally belonging privately to individuals that would be socialism.
Whether the USA needs socialism, and whether socialism goes against human nature, and whether redistributive change is counterproductive to the entire society are questions that are not related to which forms of redistribution are socialist.
NOTE: it is well worth paying close attention to the difference between a redistribution of wealth and a redistribution of income.
In Socialism the resources of the planet belong to all the people in common, so Yes, I suppose that counts as redistribution of wealth.
Redistribution of wealth equates to nothing more than the government taking what you earned with your time and sweat and basically giving it away. This isn't fair, it's communism.
No. Redistribution would not improve the supply, but rather the demand for goods. * Although "control" of the country's wealth is in the hands of a minority, there would not be enough revenue from income redistribution to improve the average lifestyle: that would require the redistribution of income-producing resources, which is socialism or communism. Once there was no advantage to self-improvement, the "rich" would stop earning money that they could not keep.
Equal distribution of wealth is associated with the ideas of Communism and Socialism.
Socialism and Communism.
Socialism.
The redistribution of wealth is aimed at enhancing levels of economic equality.
I think you mean redistribution of wealth?Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.-Wikipedia. :)Basically meaning, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay, because the government is distributing wealth.
Redistribution of wealth equates to nothing more than the government taking what you earned with your time and sweat and basically giving it away. This isn't fair, it's communism.
No. Redistribution would not improve the supply, but rather the demand for goods. * Although "control" of the country's wealth is in the hands of a minority, there would not be enough revenue from income redistribution to improve the average lifestyle: that would require the redistribution of income-producing resources, which is socialism or communism. Once there was no advantage to self-improvement, the "rich" would stop earning money that they could not keep.
Community finance incolces the redistribution of wealth by the communist overseer.
So the sick and elderly don't have to survive on the streets if a financial catastrophe hits their lives.
Yes, Karl Marx believed in the redistribution of wealth as a core tenet of his political and economic philosophy. He argued for the redistribution of wealth to address economic inequality and advocated for the abolition of private property in order to create a more equitable society.
Yes, he has made that clear many times.
Socialism
Equal distribution of wealth is associated with the ideas of Communism and Socialism.
Share Our Wealth.
Socialism and Communism.