Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...

I don't cry when families get to keep their money.
The idea of the government not getting every single dollar when someone dies does not make me sad.

How much will the government get when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet die?

It seems they aren't afraid to deny the government of money either.

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

No, they didn't agree on that at all, and they certainly didn't agree that allowing government to take it was the proper solution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.[/SIZE][/B]

dumbto3 strikes again!


"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

 

[zeke]

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.

 

[bripat9643]

They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive) deduction other industries do not get!

I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.

LMAO. You'd have no problem if no one ever paid an income tax again.

But you can't say what would happen as a consequence of doing that.

And that's in itself is a problem.

The consequence would be that America would thrive. That's what happened before we had an income tax.

Libturds behave as if America didn't exist before the Great Depression.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

Yes morals. The morality of wealth redistribution. I'm not interested in your left/right nonsense.

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

The question of the thread is whether that tax structure is truly moral, or simply endorsed by consensus.

Society decides morality. Death penalty, feeding and clothing the poor and meek, etc...

 

[Dad2three]

I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.

LMAO. You'd have no problem if no one ever paid an income tax again.

But you can't say what would happen as a consequence of doing that.

And that's in itself is a problem.

The consequence would be that America would thrive. That's what happened before we had an income tax.

We had a few VERY rich and MANY, MANY, MANY poor!

Look to almost any third world nation for current examples!

 

[dblack]

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

Yes morals. The morality of wealth redistribution. I'm not interested in your left/right nonsense.

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

The question of the thread is whether that tax structure is truly moral, or simply endorsed by consensus.

Society decides morality. Death penalty, feeding and clothing the poor and meek, etc...

We do. But it isn't simply a matter of majority rule. Or is that how you see it?

 

[Dad2three]

]If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.[/SIZE][/B]

dumbto3 strikes again!


"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

""To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Notein Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816."





The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


Benjamin Franklin: All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.



"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson


"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

Yes morals. The morality of wealth redistribution. I'm not interested in your left/right nonsense.



The question of the thread is whether that tax structure is truly moral, or simply endorsed by consensus.

Society decides morality. Death penalty, feeding and clothing the poor and meek, etc...

We do. But it isn't simply a matter of majority rule. Or is that how you see it?

Nope, simple minds are what conservatives use

 

[bripat9643]

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

whats moral is that everyone pay the same price for govt just like they pay the same price in the supermarket. Does the liberal want the rich to pay more in the supermarket too?

Also, in a free county if you don't want Steve Jobs to have so much money convince people not to buy his products, not to use govt guns to steal the money back.
Suppose the rich got together and used govt to steal back their products after they were purchased?

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the appeal to authority, I see. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible. For one thing, his initial premise is wrong. Private property existed prior to government. Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.

Hey Zeke, if Obama thinks the drug benefit costs too much, he is free to push for repeal.
If he thinks the wars cost too much, he is free to push for their end.
If he feels the people got to keep too much of their income because of the Bush tax cuts, he is free to tell them the government needs their money more than they do.

He is free to whine about the unfairness of it all and pretend he has no power at all, but that would make him a whiny bitch. Don't you think?

 

[Dad2three]

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

We haven't decided any such thing. The phrase "we are a society" is absolutely meaningless."

The Founders felt YOU were full of it

 

[bripat9643]

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.

Every president has to pay the obligations incurred by previous presidents. Since you imbeciles don't let Bush off the hook for such obligations, you have no justification for letting Obama off the hook. Furthermore, part of what Obama ran on was reducing the deficit.

 

[bripat9643]

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

We haven't decided any such thing. The phrase "we are a society" is absolutely meaningless."

The Founders felt YOU were full of it

 

[Dad2three]

whats moral is that everyone pay the same price for govt just like they pay the same price in the supermarket. Does the liberal want the rich to pay more in the supermarket too?

Also, in a free county if you don't want Steve Jobs to have so much money convince people not to buy his products, not to use govt guns to steal the money back.
Suppose the rich got together and used govt to steal back their products after they were purchased?

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the appeal to authority, I see. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible. For one thing, his initial premise is wrong. Private property existed prior to government. Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

 

[dblack]

Society decides morality. Death penalty, feeding and clothing the poor and meek, etc...

We do. But it isn't simply a matter of majority rule. Or is that how you see it?

Nope

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

 

[Dad2three]

We haven't decided any such thing. The phrase "we are a society" is absolutely meaningless."

The Founders felt YOU were full of it

Nope, haven't voted for a GOPer in 30 years!

 

[Dad2three]

We do. But it isn't simply a matter of majority rule. Or is that how you see it?

Nope

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class (that conservative policy has shrunk the past 40 years by 10%) and created the functioning US society , as 'morality' is just bullshit!

 

[Dad2three]

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.

Every president has to pay the obligations incurred by previous presidents. Since you imbeciles don't let Bush off the hook for such obligations, you have no justification for letting Obama off the hook. Furthermore, part of what Obama ran on was reducing the deficit.

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues, 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eye could see...


HONESTY, TRY IT!!!


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

 

[dblack]

Nope

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class (that conservative policy has shrunk the past 40 years by 10%) and created the functioning US society , as 'morality' is just bullshit!

We're not questioning taxes. We're questioning the practice of using taxes for the purpose of redistributing wealth, rather than an equitable means of financing government.