Dolores Huerta Quotes

The production of wealth is the result of agreement between labor and capital, between employer and employed. Its distribution, therefore, will follow the law of its creation, or great injustice will be done.

You must not embark on programs to curb economic growth without placing a priority on maintaining income, so that the poorest people won’t simply be further depressed in their condition but will have a share, and be able to live decently.

This Government intends no injury to honest business. The processes we follow in seeking social justice do not, in adding to general prosperity, take from one and give to another. In this modern world, the spreading out of opportunity ought not to consist of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words, we are concerned with more than mere subtraction and addition. We are concerned with multiplication also -- multiplication of wealth through cooperative action, wealth in which all can share.

I was at the World Bank and a commission reviewed our work on inequality for the U.S. Congress or somebody, and the head of the commission said to us: "You are spending taxpayer money to study issues like inequality? Which goes directly against capitalism and growth." That was the perception, that it should not be studied.

Economic equality of my conception does not mean that every one will literally have the same amount.

We live in a world where economic positions - income and wealth - are very unevenly distributed, and this leads to the widespread persistence of poverty.

If you really want to end income inequality, I've got the way to fix it. People who don't work shouldn't get any income.

We've got a lot of work to do economically in this country to bring about a more just and fair economy.

In talking about equality and asking vehemently for its realization, nobody advocates a curtailment of his own present income.

I would put primary emphasis on a good standard of living equitably distributed. It can't be equal, but one that eliminates the terrible cruelty of poverty.

I knew that it is out of the question to have honest, economical government while a few are inordinately rich and the great mass of men are poor. In fact, it is to be doubted if anything really worthwhile can be done until there is a fairer distribution of wealth.

Unequal distribution of income is an excessively uneconomic method of getting the necessary saving done.

What does 'economic justice' mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?

... the top 10 percent of incomes pay 70 percent of the income taxes and cast about 25 percent of the vote.

The greed of the billionaire class has got to end and we are going to end it for them.

This is the even-handed dealing of the world!" he said. "There is noth-ing on which it is so hard as poverty; and there is nothing it professes tocondemn with such severity as the pursuit of wealth!

I'm no communist.I'm a tax cutting Conservative. But I want a capitalism that is fairer to forgotten people.

The lower half of households by wealth held just 3% of wealth in 1989 and only 1% in 2013.

Nothing would more quickly and definitively reduce U.S. income inequality than allowing every worker in all businesses to participate in deciding the range of incomes from one worker to another. They would never do what is now a matter of normality: give one person millions, in some cases billions, while others have barely enough to make a living.

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.

The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.

My philosophy has always been that benefits should percolate up rather than trickle down.

It's immoral and wrong that the top 1 percent of the USA owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. We should look at countries like Denmark and Sweden and Norway and look at what they've accomplished for their working people.

Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not.

If there is any law governing the distribution of income between classes, it still remains to be discovered.