Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[kaz]

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

What you said.

So RW, government does not redistribute wealth. But it does redistribute wealth, from the poor to the wealthy. you want to make government that is stealing with the poor and giving to the rich stronger because you are opposed to what they are doing and you want more of it.

That sounds right to rdean who stuck his hand down your pants to express his approval.

One question RW. So how do you explain if you're being robbed why you are living on checks of other people's money sent to you by government?

 

[dnsmith35]

There are some people who are legitimately concerned about the wealth of the .01%. Others are just jealous. But what few of them recognize is, no matter how much wealth the most wealthy accumulated, it doesn't detract a single penny from the less wealthy. Wealth is not a zero sum game many would like us believe.

One of the primary purpose of government is to protect private property, even the property of the wealthy.

 

[Mindful]

I can't work out who's saying what.

 

[Abishai100]

Corporate Incentives

Here's a note:

It seems that our modern world of globalization not only brings up concerns about wealth redistribution, but it also raises questions about the effect of potential unhappiness created by wealth iniquities.

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

Many ideas about balancing finances have been circulated --- debt forgiveness programs, 5-year repayment plans, national unions, etc.

A new idea that has been receiving some attention is renewable energy research which has the potential of creating profitable and beneficial alliances between OPEC and Western oil companies such as BP (British Petroleum).

If companies create allianes, governments could follow suit, which in turn can benefit companies socially. We may see wealth redistribution as a simple effect of trade, perhaps even assuaging fears that Wall Street is creating imposing werewolves.

 

[kaz]

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?

 

[Otium]

What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?

My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.

OK. That was easy.

Now, what defines " moderation" is where the hard part comes in. E.g., mid 1990s welfare reform was deemed " cruel and heartless" by critics ( including Hillary) of the law, the results of the ROLLBACK of redistribution were mostly very positive in improving the lots and lives of many hitherto welfare recipients.

Stipulating that a certain level is both moral and necessary, is easy. GOP define success by fewer dependents on the government and the Dems count success by its expansion. Simple. And there's the political fight.

This is why we need a less biased and more responsible press. When the GOP are demagogued as " heartless" for daring to reform entitlements, or to cut the rate of growth of discretionary spending, and waging a "war" on women for asking that some women pay for their own birth control ?

There is NO hope for a meaningful compromise that makes sense .

 

[Otium]

fanaticism and

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?

Good Lord. Economics was NOT in play as the hijackers screamed Allahu Akbar! It is about a perversion of a age old reading of the Koran. It is fanatical, warped, ignorant religious fanaticism and zealotry.

Economic protesters would kidnap and extort money, not destroy and kill knowing that said attack will produce a military response and kill thousands of their fellow fanatics.

 

[kaz]

fanaticism and

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?

Goof Lord. Economics was NOT in play as the hijackers screamed Allahu Akbar! It is about a perversion of a age old reading of the Koran. It is fanatical, warped, ignorant religious fanaticism and zealotry.

Economic protesters would kidnap and extort money, not destroy and kill knowing that said attack will produce a military response and kill thousands of their fellow fanatics.

Are you sure about that? Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists

 

[Otium]

What?

It means ( +/-) "God is Great!"


And the act committed was ostensibly in his name .

If you think the meaning was to feed the poor? I'd think the House of Saud and any and all of the oil rich kleptocracies of the region would attract suicide bombings before we would.

The opulence of the Kingdoms , based on stolen oil resources and wealth, amid the poverty of the area, is so obvious that it begs the larger question of why the Arab despots don't spend more of their wealth on FOOD from the greedy multinational, "greedy , wealthy capitalist" food companies operating in Europe and the USA.

No, the USA is the Great Satan as the ultimate proxy/symbol of secularism and individual freedom. It's not complicated. It's on HBO and Showtime.

 

[kaz]

What?

It means ( +/-) "God is Great!"


And the act committed was ostensibly in his name .

If you think the meaning was to feed the poor? I'd think the House of Saud and any and all of the oil rich kleptocracies of the region would attract suicide bombings before we would.

The opulence of the Kingdoms , based on stolen oil resources and wealth, amid the poverty of the area, is so obvious that it begs the larger question of why the Arab despots don't spend more of their wealth on FOOD from the greedy multinational, "greedy , wealthy capitalist" food companies operating in Europe and the USA.

No, the USA is the Great Satan as the ultimate proxy/symbol of secularism and individual freedom. It's not complicated. It's on HBO and Showtime.

You need to read the conversation better. First of all, you're arguing with he wrong guy, I am not the one who claimed most terrorism is over economics, I actually disagreed with that. Second of all, you're not detecting overt sarcasm. You may want to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck.

 

[bripat9643]

What?

It means ( +/-) "God is Great!"


And the act committed was ostensibly in his name .

If you think the meaning was to feed the poor? I'd think the House of Saud and any and all of the oil rich kleptocracies of the region would attract suicide bombings before we would.

The opulence of the Kingdoms , based on stolen oil resources and wealth, amid the poverty of the area, is so obvious that it begs the larger question of why the Arab despots don't spend more of their wealth on FOOD from the greedy multinational, "greedy , wealthy capitalist" food companies operating in Europe and the USA.

No, the USA is the Great Satan as the ultimate proxy/symbol of secularism and individual freedom. It's not complicated. It's on HBO and Showtime.

How did these "greedy" corporations steal anything? They have to purchase everything they consume.

 

[Otium]

What?

It means ( +/-) "God is Great!"


And the act committed was ostensibly in his name .

If you think the meaning was to feed the poor? I'd think the House of Saud and any and all of the oil rich kleptocracies of the region would attract suicide bombings before we would.

The opulence of the Kingdoms , based on stolen oil resources and wealth, amid the poverty of the area, is so obvious that it begs the larger question of why the Arab despots don't spend more of their wealth on FOOD from the greedy multinational, "greedy , wealthy capitalist" food companies operating in Europe and the USA.

No, the USA is the Great Satan as the ultimate proxy/symbol of secularism and individual freedom. It's not complicated. It's on HBO and Showtime.

How did these "greedy" corporations steal anything? They have to purchase everything they consume.

I was responding in sarcasm to the quoted post. Re read in context. ( And I apparently made the same mistake!)

 

[Otium]

fanaticism and

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?

Goof Lord. Economics was NOT in play as the hijackers screamed Allahu Akbar! It is about a perversion of a age old reading of the Koran. It is fanatical, warped, ignorant religious fanaticism and zealotry.

Economic protesters would kidnap and extort money, not destroy and kill knowing that said attack will produce a military response and kill thousands of their fellow fanatics.

Are you sure about that? Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists

Please help me understand how I was supposed to note the "sarcasm" here. I am a newbie here. How was this not your post? Thanks.


Morality of Wealth Redistribution Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[kaz]

fanaticism and

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market. After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?

Goof Lord. Economics was NOT in play as the hijackers screamed Allahu Akbar! It is about a perversion of a age old reading of the Koran. It is fanatical, warped, ignorant religious fanaticism and zealotry.

Economic protesters would kidnap and extort money, not destroy and kill knowing that said attack will produce a military response and kill thousands of their fellow fanatics.

Are you sure about that? Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists

Please help me understand how I was supposed to note the "sarcasm" here. I am a newbie here. How was this not your post? Thanks.


Morality of Wealth Redistribution Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You seem not to be following the conversation at all. For example, you keep arguing with me about a point that I agree with. I already told you that. Someone argued most terrorism is over economic disparity. I said that is ridiculous, particularly since most terrorism is committed by Muslim extremists.

So, given that I think it's stupid that someone argued that most terrorism is over economics, when I said "Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists," how could you not recognize that as sarcasm?

 

[haissem123]

Jesus was a socialist

Really? Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity. What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it. I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this. Back it up.

what are you talking about? Jesus wasn't a socialist? he cared for the least. he was given crap for wearing too much perfume to his death because of it's cost and how many it could have helped or fed. what do you call such a person? a capitalist?

 

[haissem123]

Jesus was a socialist

Really? Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity. What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it. I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this. Back it up.

everything we do today is done at the point of a gun barrel, a sword or pen point. look around you heathen.

 

[kaz]

Jesus was a socialist

Really? Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity. What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it. I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this. Back it up.

what are you talking about? Jesus wasn't a socialist? he cared for the least. he was given crap for wearing too much perfume to his death because of it's cost and how many it could have helped or fed. what do you call such a person? a capitalist?

Do you understand that socialism is government? Where did Jesus advocate government do those things?

 

[kaz]

Jesus was a socialist

Really? Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity. What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it. I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this. Back it up.

everything we do today is done at the point of a gun barrel, a sword or pen point. look around you heathen.

I see, so opposition to using force makes one a heathen? LOL, what a douche.

 

[haissem123]

If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.

They paid nearly $300 billion in taxes and yet you persist in parroting the liberal oil company hate talking points. Liberals told you to hate them and you obeyed, its sad really.

What matters is the percentage of income paid relative to other companies, not the total. This is an incredibly easy point to grasp. Would you support taxing a person making $10,000 at 30%, and a person making $1 million at 1%? Do you understand how that compares to companies that receive special tax privileges?

Exxon Mobile is won of the most profitable companies, meaning it should pay one of the highest corporate tax rates. Yet it pays an average of 17.6% in corporate taxes, higher than the average individual effective income tax rate.
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man Center for American Progress

What I am criticizing is the government picking and choosing corporations and industries to subsidize. That fosters an enormous amount of corruption and rent-seeking and runs contrary to basic free market principles. A corporate socialist is not a capitalist.

And yet Corporate taxation never does what most people think it does. Based on studies of tax incidence much taxes levied on Corporations are actually paid by consumers. If the Capital is mobile, they can be passed on to labor. If supply is elastic consumers pay the tax. But the most important problem with Corporate taxation is, it gives the congress critters a means to pass on savings for campaign contributions. The taxes Corporations do pay should be eliminated and passed on to the owners of the shares for their profits off of the company making it a tax neutral situation.

ya, more bullshit jumbo talk. you made yourself wealthy on your hard work? education? you've learned nothing and earned what's coming to you. karma has a way of waking up the "poor" to eat the rich as they've fed on the poor. get a history book stupid

Actually no BS at all. I am not wealthy and what I have I did earn through work and my education helped me to do so. If there is ignorance being expended on this thread, it is you doing the crap throwing. The point is, we have lost numerous corporations who have migrated their headquarters to a lower tax country. All of those would have stayed in the US but for the excessive corporate taxation. We would keep many of them here if we taxed the money paid to the share holders such that it would be tax neutral.

Interesting is the way you earlier used the term "rent-seeking." Sounds like the failed attempts of Georgism; a system which has never succeeded without resorting to other taxes to keep the government going. Example: Hong Kong, which has several types of tax besides land valuation tax. In addition, as in Hong Kong, when LVT is used and the user pays the rent to the government, it all works exactly the same as fee-simple property tax on owned land. It is inheritable, it is exclusive to the current occupant, it can be sold just like private land, thus there is no practical difference between one system and the other since if property taxes not paid the land is forfeit.

They prove it again and again libs would rather get no tax revenue at all from corporations vs lowering the tax rate to keep corporations in America and get at least something. Its insane but there it is. You see this in liberal states they will vamp tax a company right out of business or drive them to relocate to another state seemingly oblivious to having just killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Corporation after corporation bails to another country and the only response from liberals is to demonize them. That's not a strategy. In the liberals strange world corporations should willingly stay in the U.S. and be spat upon, demonized, and punished by higher taxes. Who the hell knows what's wrong with these liberals, brain damage maybe.

why if corporations have been raking in major profits for the last 40 or more years as all others wages go down, should anybody worry about corporations paying more taxs? not too mention the billionaires investing don't pay taxes on their winfalls because they hide the earnings, lobby congress so they don't have to or just launder the money. you corporate lovers are killing yourselves.

 

[haissem123]

Jesus was a socialist

Really? Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity. What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it. I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this. Back it up.

what are you talking about? Jesus wasn't a socialist? he cared for the least. he was given crap for wearing too much perfume to his death because of it's cost and how many it could have helped or fed. what do you call such a person? a capitalist?

Do you understand that socialism is government? Where did Jesus advocate government do those things?

who said socialism is government? government is supposed to be us the people you bozo. i think you are confused and misguided. stop watching so much fox news. propaganda