Why do leftists want to redistribute everyone elses wealth but their own?

Why do leftists want to redistribute everyone elses wealth but their own?

Liberalism is works great until you run out of everyone else's money.

When did liberalism start meaning this shit?

Liberalism used to be about laissez fair. About anti-interventionism. Low taxes. Talking about 19th century here.

How did it go from that to increasing taxes and shit?

because leftists are the ones who would have money redistributed towards them, not away from them

Leftism (bigger government) and liberalism go hand-in-hand nowadays.

They wants as much gibmedats as possible while being able to do as many drugs as they want, indulging themselves in greed, gluttony, and lust.

Literally american education

Liberalism means what they'd call libertarianism in obamaland, but even their libertarianism is too retarded to be considered liberalism by everyone else

Yeah the moron american mis-quoted Thatcher when she said communism, not liberalism.

>americans

When progressive co-opted the phrase. If they hadn't stolen 'liberal', we wouldn't have had to steal 'libertarian' from them.

Because they believe that they are the poor people who will receive money from wealth distribution. They, the ones with college degrees and iPhones, think they are the lower class because they can't afford their dream ferrari or mansion, but they can afford a nice used car, and a nice house or apartment

This.

how many leftist do you know that are rich?

how many are jews?

how many actually donate, but only to their own foundations?

most jewz are right-wing by default
This is what amuses me on Sup Forums everyone is talking about the jewish boogeyman but most of you guys promote merchant economics.
Who is pro-israel? Conservatives. The biggest nationalists? Israelis.

Israelis view nationality as a Jew only thing. We can't have it in their eyes

This.
They have no concept of wealth or any idea how many people there are in the world.

If you liquified the ENTIRE GDP ($16.77 TRILLION) of the United States and distributed it evenly among the ENTIRE POPULATION, you'd get a one time payment of $51,000.

Then the entire country erupts into chaos because our money is based on the worth of our country's product, and we just liquidated ALL OF IT, thereby reducing its worth to ZERO.

Leftists are usually people that are not very rich. Either because life has fucked them or because they are lazy. They see rich people live in extreme luxury and would like a piece of that. Most of them are not able to attain it by their own means, for myriad reasons. Part of which is that you gotta have money to make money. Hence, their viewpoint of wealth redistribution is completely understandable and has some merit. Yes they are essentially asking for other people to give them money. But short of retarded lazy dindus, is that an unfair thing to ask when you have no means to improve your life yourself?

On the other side you have right wingers, who are more often wealthy than not. These people don't want to share their money, much less have it redistributed to those less fortunate than them because they often have a view of the world that hard work is rewarded with lots of money. Even though this is not the case in reality. Regardless, they view people asking for wealth redistribution as lazy, and any sane human being would not want to help those who don't even try themselves. Hence, I can understand their views as well.
I guess both sides have a somewhat misguided view of the other.

Personally, I'm all for reasonable wealth redistribution. Taxing rich folks higher won't make them significantly less rich, while in turn that money can be used to improve the lives of many from absolute poverty to at least livable.
Plus making education, health care, etc available to everyone at low cost or even for free (for the clients who need to make use of it, before anyone screams nothing is free) is a net benefit for society as a whole.

>how many leftist do you know that are rich?
Many.
>how many are jews?
Zero.
>how many actually donate, but only to their own foundations?
N/A

Another fun fact:
There is currently 1.46 Trillion USD in paper money currently in circulation.

If you collected and distributed it evenly among every American, they'd get a one-time payment of around $4500.

Just like every nationalist ever views his country as only compatible with his own belief/race/whatever. My point is that you're condemning the eternal jew while promoting merchant tactics (ie capitalism) and falsely compare it with naturalism.

in usa liberalism means social-democracy so center-left politics
in europe liberalism means classical liberalism so center-right economics

>Part of which is that you gotta have money to make money
no, you have to know how to make money to make money. if you take a millionaire and strip everything from him, he'll still be able to become a millionaire again

>Taxing rich folks higher won't make them significantly less rich
it will however strip them of money that they can use to further various endeavors, since anyone who has a net worth of over 200 million USD generally is either a fuckwit with 8 cars and 3 mansions or gives goods and services to other people
javascript:;
> while in turn that money can be used to improve the lives of many from absolute poverty to at least livable.
and they then squander the money, and the money ends up in the exact same hands as before, leading to this exact same argument being used over and over and over, just as it has for the past 1,000 years

they'll spend it on fucking trinkets, and cars/houses/etc far out of their means until they lose it all

>Plus making education, health care, etc available to everyone at low cost or even for free
yes, and to do this you're either going to be relying on the good will of people (which is very rare) or you're going to be using the state (which can only pay for this shit by tax, aka european nations, or military might, aka the US)

in the end you're taking money that could be used to develop a technology, or develop a product, and putting it into a bullshit system that stretches it out and uses it to pay union fees, vastly overpriced wages, 10 thousand dollar lunch meetings, etc.

the free market is the best thing to ever happen, and people like you are stomping on it

Why can't there be a balance?
Free market is nice and all, but there need to be some limitations to keep one party from becoming too powerful and/or abusing other parties.
It's perfectly possible to have a mostly capitalistic society with various socialistic policies so that said society is a nice place for everyone and not just the most successful elite.

Of course, if you add niggers or sandniggers to the equation they take advantage of it and ruin everything.

This

All the benefits, none of the costs to themselves. Humans like free shit.

Almost everyone does want a balance, but they disagree on where it should be. How much pollution is worth how much economic growth? At what point should the government intervene, and how?