Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[manifold]

The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.

And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?

My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system. I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did. But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.

I'm not sure upon what evidence you base your opinion that I bolded. Can you elaborate?

 

[Wiseacre]

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.

(You people can't this naive. The OP is repeating talk radio garbage)

(wow, just wow)

Actually there might be some truth in what you say, but you've got the major issue wrong. Wealth is not redistributed upward, it is created at all levels but primarily at the top cuz the rich guys have the most to invest. The wads of money a rich guy makes does not come at the expense of a bunch of poor people, when Bill gates makes a billion dollars a year or whatever, it's not like a hundred million or so other people lost that money, it's not zero sum.

Do you believe money is a commodity?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

The notion that money is a commodity is nonsense unless you have a fixed amount of currency tied to the gold standard or something similar. In fact money is a tool used in exchange, a substitute for something else of value. It changes all the time, relative to whatever someone thinks it's worth compared to something else.

The Fed creates more of it all the time, we've had some 600 billion pumped into the economy in just the last 6 months or so. We also have in most years a sizeable increase in GDP, which means more wealth. Rich people get most of it cuz they're the ones who have the most money invested, more risk means more reward. And then there's asset appreciation, like the value of your house or your business going up over time. Nobody else got hurt cuz your house went up in value over a 10 year period, you got wealthier but not at anyone else's expense. Could be financial or intellectual assets too, all sorts of ways for your wealth to go up without costing anyone else a dime.

 

[boedicca]

The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.

And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?

My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system. I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did. But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.

My objection is related and two-fold:

1. Pools of other people's money create moral hazards for those who have access to and control of them.

2. Having the government in the business of wealth distribution destroys healthy values of work, saving, and self-reliance.

It's not a coincidence that the more government tries "to help", that the number of people who require help continues to out pace population growth.

 

[bripat9643]

Manipulating markets through stock purchases intending to reap profits from the wholesale destruction of markets doesn't expand production.

Then it's a good thing that never happens. No one who buys stock wants to destroy the market.

The decreased demand because the people that spend 100% of their income surviving are paying the tax burden formerly paid by the people that have enough money individually to distort markets through their decisions causes a spiral of contraction.

No one has enough money to "distort markets." Furthermore, why would they want to? When people invest in stocks they want to make money.

Too much money controlled by two few individuals creates market El Ninos. Concentrated wealth is always bad for a market. Like Dolly said, you have to spread it for it to do any good.

Really? You have some empirical evidence to support this claim? How much money is too much? When the rich invest their money in the stock market, they are spreading it out, dipstick.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".

 

[manifold]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".

In my opinion, editec is right and you are wrong. No offense.

You can find a more detailed articulation of my opinion here if you care: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-5.html#post3653738

 

[CountofTuscany]

And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?

My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system. I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did. But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.

I'm not sure upon what evidence you base your opinion that I bolded. Can you elaborate?

Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it? How many of these people are on it for life?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

That's not the point. The OP is asking if individual earners should have their earnings taken by government by force of law and given to those who can but refuse to earn it themselves.
BTW, since you opened the door, those oil subsidies go to small firms that without the subsidies could not compete with the larger companies.
The entire subsidy issue was spun by the White House then by lazy reporting on the part of the SM to raise anger toward the oil business in general which the public sees as reaping the benefits of high oil and gas prices. At the end of the day, the Obama admin was hoping to be able to say " see, we're fighting big evil oil companies and punishing them for charging you too much."
It's all smoke and mirrors. Here's an example that debunks the theory of oil companies' no involvement in raising and lowering of prices and the absence of evidence they are profiteering off the high prices of gas.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43151537

 

[Uncensored2008]

Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it?

The vast majority.

How many of these people are on it for life?

The vast majority.


You see, the vast majority of people receiving subsidized living are government employees. They feed at the public trough for 20 years, then retire. The public pays them for life.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it?

The vast majority.

How many of these people are on it for life?

The vast majority.


You see, the vast majority of people receiving subsidized living are government employees. They feed at the public trough for 20 years, then retire. The public pays them for life.

Spin. That's pay, not a hand out. Those are the jobs taxes are inteneded to go for. It's not subsidized living.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".

In my opinion, editec is right and you are wrong. No offense.

This just makes you wrong as well.

"Redistribution of wealth" has a specific meaning.

Huge parts of the government aren't involved in the specifics of that meaning, and so there's no way to soundly argue that you cannot have government w/o also redistributing wealth.

As for the post you linned to, I responded to it when you originally posted it.
Nothing you have posted since does anything to negate my response.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

I have to disagree with this a bit.

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'. It was necessary to provide the common defense and secure the rights of the people. But that was ALL it was designed to do. Within the social contract that we call The Constitution, there was provision for some shared services such as post roads, licensing agencies, etc., but these were designed to be fully available to all citizens, rich and poor alike, at all times. Taxes were seen as necessary to fund the constitutional obligations of the federal government and for no other purpose.

No wealth redistribution was a factor in any of that and would have been anathema to the Founders' concepts of what government should be.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers 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 everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

 

[thereisnospoon]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".

That is 100% true.
Redistribution of wealth is a state of mind.
Some believe taxation is redistribution. It is not.
Redistribution is abuse of taxation for the express purpose of punishing those who in the minds of certain political circles, have "too much", "enough" or "have more than their fair share of the finite amount of wealth". The latter is the belief in the zero sum game.
We can have fair taxation for the express purpose of funding government. That must exist in a world without passion or prejudice. Unfortunately with the Left, passion and prejudice are the key ingredients. Hence the absence of commentary from the Left regarding fiscal responsibility and discipline on the part of government.

 

[manifold]

Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".

In my opinion, editec is right and you are wrong. No offense.

This just makes you wrong as well.

"Redistribution of wealth" has a specific meaning.

Huge parts of the government aren't involved in the specifics of that meaning, and so there's no way to soundly argue that you cannot have government w/o also redistributing wealth.

As for the post you linned to, I responded to it when you originally posted it.
Nothing you have posted since does anything to negate my response.

Only if you self-servingly, narrowly and wrongly redefine "redistribution of wealth"

 

[manifold]

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution. Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness. And that's ubertarded.

 

[Againsheila]

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?

Define "earn". Somehow I don't believe CEO's "earn" 500 times more money than their employees.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Define "earn". Somehow I don't believe CEO's "earn" 500 times more money than their employees.

That's class envy. Start your own thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution. Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness. And that's ubertarded.

Well I'm willing to be convinced, but you'll have to give me a better argument than that to do it. I don't see the Founders' view of taxation as any form of redistribution of wealth via any program. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution or in any of their writings that suggests that any license of any sort is given to government to take from one in order to benefit another. Presidents and Congresses operated under that principle for more than a century before 'wealth redistribution' started creeping into the process.

 

[Spoonman]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

I have to disagree with this a bit.

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'. It was necessary to provide the common defense and secure the rights of the people. But that was ALL it was designed to do. Within the social contract that we call The Constitution, there was provision for some shared services such as post roads, licensing agencies, etc., but these were designed to be fully available to all citizens, rich and poor alike, at all times. Taxes were seen as necessary to fund the constitutional obligations of the federal government and for no other purpose.

No wealth redistribution was a factor in any of that and would have been anathema to the Founders' concepts of what government should be.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers 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 everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

You are 1000% right. Government is a necessary evil. And it is designed to provide for the neccesities as you mentioned. Most of us sane rational people have no problem with that. I think where we start to get aggitated is how original intent gets so easily corrupted into abuse. Which is exactly what redistribution of wealth is.

 

[Spoonman]

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution. Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness. And that's ubertarded.

thats a very unnecessary evil. that's abuse.