Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.

Called a SOCIETY. Don't like it?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"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."

In fact, Federal Taxes are collected to pay for the authorized functions listed in the Constitution as Amended; and based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights.

' based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights'


LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'

So you think it would be good for the average guy if Saddam controlled 1/3 of the world oil supply and the price of gas was $10/gal?

You mean like Europe? A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.

So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait? Is that really what you're saying?

 

[bripat9643]

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

How does that justify looting what I've earned?

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving.

How are libertarians parasites? Who are they sucking off of?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'

So you think it would be good for the average guy if Saddam controlled 1/3 of the world oil supply and the price of gas was $10/gal?

the price of oil skyrocketed BECAUSE of the Iraqi war... wars make oil prices go up, not down....

Yeah, it "sky rocketed" for about a week. Then it returned to its pre-war level.

 

[Dad2three]

So you think it would be good for the average guy if Saddam controlled 1/3 of the world oil supply and the price of gas was $10/gal?

You mean like Europe? A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.

So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait? Is that really what you're saying?

A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

 

[dblack]

You mean like Europe? A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.

So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait? Is that really what you're saying?

A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

hmmm.... bri?

Troll's got a point...

 

[Ernie S.]

I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.

Called a SOCIETY. Don't like it?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"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."

Mr Franklin was a wealthy man and died as such while Mr Morris had been a very wealthy man who sacrificed his fortune to support the revolution and died nearly penniless.
Franklin, though I have profound respect for, was a tad hypocritical here.

I think also, that you misunderstand what was meant by "Welfare of the Publick". Franklin was NOT advocating that government should assume the responsibilities of citizens, but that it should provide such things as a military, courts and police. for the good of the "Publick".

 

[Dad2three]

I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.

Called a SOCIETY. Don't like it?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"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."

Mr Franklin was a wealthy man and died as such while Mr Morris had been a very wealthy man who sacrificed his fortune to support the revolution and died nearly penniless.
Franklin, though I have profound respect for, was a tad hypocritical here.

I think also, that you misunderstand what was meant by "Welfare of the Publick". Franklin was NOT advocating that government should assume the responsibilities of citizens, but that it should provide such things as a military, courts and police. for the good of the "Publick".

Hypocritical? lol


WHY? You realize, though Mr Morris was the financier (Washington's banker) , he lost his money speculating right?


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

Try to critically think and be honest!

 

[bripat9643]

You mean like Europe? A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.

So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait? Is that really what you're saying?

A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am

You didn't answer the question, nimrod.

 

[Ernie S.]

Which roads and bridges does Exxon pay for?

Did I say they paid for any? Thee people who purchase their product pay for roads and bridges. Do you have a point?

You don't understand the context of the question. Got it

The question was: Which roads and bridges does Exxon pay for?

If you expect an answer on context, include context.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

There is a such thing as being too rich for Democracy so at some point we came up with cutting the mega rich's fortunes in half upon their death's. That way their kids still get half a fortune and the government/people get their half.

Article: How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy? | OpEdNews

But the rich have fought back and they got rid of the death tax. I don't know where it stands now but with our debt we could use half of Bill Gates fortune when he dies.

Or that guy who owns the Clippers. We should get half of the $2 billion he got from the sale of the Clippers. And he probably already paid $1 billion in taxes so his kids can have half a billion the state gets the rest.

Please don't cry for them. They'll be just fine. And if they don't pay then the poor and middle class have to pay. That's not right, fair and it doesn't work.

What right do you have to Bill Gates' money?

 

[Ernie S.]

There is a such thing as being too rich for Democracy so at some point we came up with cutting the mega rich's fortunes in half upon their death's. That way their kids still get half a fortune and the government/people get their half.

Article: How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy? | OpEdNews

But the rich have fought back and they got rid of the death tax. I don't know where it stands now but with our debt we could use half of Bill Gates fortune when he dies.

Or that guy who owns the Clippers. We should get half of the $2 billion he got from the sale of the Clippers. And he probably already paid $1 billion in taxes so his kids can have half a billion the state gets the rest.

Please don't cry for them. They'll be just fine. And if they don't pay then the poor and middle class have to pay. That's not right, fair and it doesn't work.

That's a good reason to abolish democracy, not to loot the wealthy.

Note that you haven't posted a single reason why the government should be entitled to a single cent of Bill Gates' fortune.

What is "fair" of taking half of everything someone spent all his life earning?

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
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.



With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule.

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



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."






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."


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

All of those men died fairly well off. Where did their assets end up? Certainly not in the US treasury.

 

[regent]

Perhaps everything should be paid for by use? If a person walks on a sidewalk or uses a street he pays.
But how would we pay for things like national defense, because I wouldn't pay and how they gonna charge me? I think the libertarians are on to something here, just gotta work out the bugs. A new program: Pay for use only.

 

[Ernie S.]

Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis


The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

The middle class has been eviscerated by taxes.

The wealthy have no desire to keep people poor. We need customers. If you think I charge too much for my product, consider that the shot whiskey I serve is taxed $0.18. Licenses, property and inventory taxes cost thousands/ year and I must buy distilled spirits from the state and beers from approved distributors that have monopolies in their areas. Budweiser products come on one truck, Miller on a second and importeds and wine on a third. I cannot go to a independent package store or grocery and buy stock.

 

[Ernie S.]

Weird, I thought gas taxes (according to conservatives) pay for that? But no, their taxes go to the military to keep stability in the world to keep their oil costs high and profits even higher!

Your theory that only oil companies need the military and stability in the world is absurd on its face.

Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'

OK Fuck ya. I wish I could just remove you from all things oil. Screw you and your Chevy Volt, Good luck finding a place in walking distance to buy food.
Without oil, you would have nothing.

Talk about the middle class being eviscerated!!!!!!

We HAVE to have oil.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'

So you think it would be good for the average guy if Saddam controlled 1/3 of the world oil supply and the price of gas was $10/gal?

the price of oil skyrocketed BECAUSE of the Iraqi war... wars make oil prices go up, not down....

What was the price of gasoline the day obama took office? About half of what it is today.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Even as a liberal and a democrat "

lol, You made me choke on my snapple

I guess you are so far left and a progressive fanatic, my being simply a liberal democrat would look conservative. Your stupidity drives you ignorance.

YOU are a Democrat of Abe's era, Southern trash!

You are a fucking idiot!

Quite comical in your ignorance, really.

 

[Ernie S.]

How does that justify looting what I've earned?

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving.

How are libertarians parasites? Who are they sucking off of?

They are not paying as much taxes as he feels they should.

 

[Ernie S.]

Called a SOCIETY. Don't like it?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"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."

Mr Franklin was a wealthy man and died as such while Mr Morris had been a very wealthy man who sacrificed his fortune to support the revolution and died nearly penniless.
Franklin, though I have profound respect for, was a tad hypocritical here.

I think also, that you misunderstand what was meant by "Welfare of the Publick". Franklin was NOT advocating that government should assume the responsibilities of citizens, but that it should provide such things as a military, courts and police. for the good of the "Publick".

Hypocritical? lol


WHY? You realize, though Mr Morris was the financier (Washington's banker) , he lost his money speculating right?


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

Try to critically think and be honest!

Wrong, fool. You really should educate yourself or remain silent.

 

[racewright]

None,None==all should pay taxes and noone should be exempt to include corporations,religious groups,school systems all should pay with no exceptions poor rich everyone or NOONE. Fuck subsidies and exemptions. Just allows those who should not tooo BEAT THE SYSTEM.