There is the freedom from want, despair and psychological insecurity that would come from having income sufficient to provide the necessities of life. But there is also the freedom to choose not to work for a time in order to take care of family members, pursue a passion, acquire education or contribute to a worthwhile community project. There is the freedom to start a new business with an uncertain future, the freedom to say yes to a job that pays little but yields joy and satisfaction — and the freedom to say no to a job that pays too little or is demeaning and unpleasant. Why, they ask, should such freedoms be reserved only for the wealthy?
I spend time with people who are movers and shakers, and others who are just friends I really care for. Some of them are rich, some of them are poor. I couldn't care less. I'm not a snob.
By the year 1982 the graduated income tax will have practically abolished major differences in wealth.
The indiscriminate denunciation of the rich is mischievous.... No poor man was ever made richer or happier by it. It is quite as illogical to despise a man because he is rich as because he is poor. Not what a man has, but what he is, settles his class. We can not right matters by taking from one what he has honestly acquired to bestow upon another what he has not earned.
I'm not against wealth; I just think everybody should have it, same as health.
All legislative experiments in the way of making forcible distribution of the wealth produced in any country have failed.
It (land value taxation) guarantees that no one dispossess fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity.
What I always say is that money doesn't have colour. It doesn't matter whether you are from Africa or anywhere in the world. The colour of money is the same.
When I speak of The Case for Equality I mean human equality; and that, of course, can only mean one thing: it means equality of income.
Whether we are poor among the poorest, or less poor among the wealthier, let us stand proud and noteworthy, united and strong, comforted by our belonging to the Community of the Free Nations of our Planet.
If everyone would take only according to his needs and would leave the surplus to the needy, no one would be rich, no one poor, no one in misery.
All we seek is an America where every person is given the chance to productively contribute to his country and where he can receive a fair and equitable share of the wealth that production creates.
Money is the great equalizer.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.
I will stand up for what I believe and for what I have always believed: Every person has a right to be rich in this country and I want to help them get there.
In order to have economic democracy you have to have equal access to property.
With the computer and stuff, the difference between a rich guy and a poor guy, to me, is nothing. Because I don't like big houses, I don't drive a car, so you know, I just live in a small apartment and I have my computer, which is really cool.
Redistribution of wealth would require enormous amounts of investment. The only time an elite has accepted this has been during crises, such as in America in the 1930s under Roosevelt.
As far as leftists are concerned, nobody should have to pay more than anybody else. Nobody should make more than anybody else. Everything is supposed to be the same. It's the only way it's fair. It's the only way feelings don't get hurt. So when circumstances like that exist, they call that anti-competitive. Anti-competitive means they can't afford it.
A commitment to equality of outcomes in life is totally alien to the American ethos.
No republic can long exist unless a substantial equality in the wealth of citizens prevails.
Moving to a cooperatively organized enterprise is one of the best ways to really do something about unequal distribution of wealth.
The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.
