Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

And why, do you suppose, we're not doing anything about that?

why? liberals are not about to admit they destroyed the American family and its schools nor are they about to admit their unions and taxes drove 40 million jobs off shore.

 

[dblack]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

And why, do you suppose, we're not doing anything about that?

why? liberals are not about to admit they destroyed the American family and its schools nor are they about to admit their unions and taxes drove 40 million jobs off shore.

What?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And why, do you suppose, we're not doing anything about that?

why? liberals are not about to admit they destroyed the American family and its schools nor are they about to admit their unions and taxes drove 40 million jobs off shore.

What?

liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!! do you understand now?

 

[Ernie S.]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

Any wealth the middle class has lost has been lost to the IRS. Sure the wealthy have accumulated even more money, but they provided a service or a tangible product (wealth) in return for it. They have created wealth by creating a product from raw materials and a good idea.

The Waltons didn't "take" anything from you. You went to their business and picked out a product, put it in a cart and willingly paid them for it. Or do you think they should be paying YOU to cart away that 60" plasma TV?

 

[bripat9643]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time. Now they get it through complicated trusts and off-shore holdings.


There really is no such thing as "Wealth" redistribution.

Ask any welfare recipient if they feel "wealthy".

The wealthy benefit from our system of government and economy, specifically the relationship between the public and private sector. They pay more, because they benefit more.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor prevents a breakdown in the system during recessions and downturns (market corrections) - safety nets are the result of lessons learned from the French revolution and Great Depression.

It not just about the rich protecting their way of life and the market system, it's about a national moral identity - we are a compassionate country. We don't allow the elderly to just lie on the streets and die, hence medicare.

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.

OMG! That's awful! Parents giving their money to their kids.

My aunt used to give me $20 on my birthday. I didn't earn that. We can't allow people to be giving their dirty filthy money away. It's unseemly.

 

[dblack]

why? liberals are not about to admit they destroyed the American family and its schools nor are they about to admit their unions and taxes drove 40 million jobs off shore.

What?

liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!! do you understand now?

I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What?

liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!! do you understand now?

I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.

who supports Democrats?

 

[dblack]

liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!! do you understand now?

I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.

who supports Democrats?

rightwinger.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.

who supports Democrats?

rightwinger.

got it. liberals are not thinkers so they contradict themselves all the time.

 

[dnsmith35]

Its what's for dinner in Acadiana:

and

Jambalaya, Rice, Crawfish Gumbo, Crawfish Bisque, Corn Bread, Crawfish Etoufee.

 

[alan1]

SURE, THAT was it *shaking head*

Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.

"We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me"

THAT was the REASON for the chart wing nuttter!

I see that you have devolved to random insults.
I find it difficult to carry on intelligent conversation with people that seem to think insults are a part of intelligent conversation. I guess that is my weakness.

 

[alan1]

So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over

Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

 

[alan1]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

If I personally take ten dollars from you and give it to somebody that needs ten dollars I am a thief. If I get my government to perform the exact same act I am a caring person known as a liberal, There is no difference, except one is legal and one is not.

 

[zeke]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[dblack]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?

No. Government can't be bothered with pick up and delivery. They demand that we send it to them, and pay our own shipping.

 

[dnsmith35]

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats. Look it up if you don't believe me.

What Daddy refuses to recognize is, when there is a surplus IT BY LAW MUST PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Clinton did not pay down the debt. Therefore THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

It amazes me how ignorant some people are. Obama has been the president over the largest increase in debt in our history. $6.7 trillion in his first 6 years. Even Bush, as bad as he was, increased the debt by less than $6.7 trillion over 98years.

 

[zeke]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?

No. Government can't be bothered with pick up and delivery. They demand that we send it to them, and pay our own shipping.

Whew. Must be a bad analogy for paying taxes.

Yea I hated it bad when my tax dollars are/were being given to warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people. Along with the other poster. I understand. I was poor once myself. People just don't like it when you are poor. Makes em think that they could have been there themselves and people don't like that either. Makes em feel guilty for not helping. Or caring.

Hey but at least the government hasn't taken my computer and given it away.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.

we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?

What difference does it make if it is done surreptitiously or at gunpoint or via threat of fine or imprisonment? What difference does it make if we watch a crime being committed? Does it make it any more or less of a crime?