Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Spoonman]

I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.

separation of church and state bro. don't go looking to bring religion into this argument. you libs took jesus out of the equation, remember

No one can take Jesus out of the equation, my friend.

the warren court already did. they taught me it's ok not to have compassion on my felow man. hell I can't even pray with him in certain places.

 

[Spoonman]

I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.

"When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong."

yea, we have a group of entitled, do nothing slugs at the bottom looking for their handout instead of making a living on their own.

So the people working at McDonalds are do nothings, and the hedge fund managers are "making a living on their own?"

are mcdonalds workers on welfare? why are they working at mcdonalds anyway? unless they are kids trying to make a few buck in school, or own the franchise. why didn't they take advantage of the same opportunities afforded them and most of the other people making a decent living?

 

[snjmom]

But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.

No, that's called good fiscal sense. Like Willie said, it's where the money is.

In other words, taxation is founded on the moral code of a bank robber.

I love it when libs admit truths they didn't want to admit.

No, taxation is founded on the moral code of the extortionist. Feel free to pay your taxes to your current extortionist that allows you a vote or take your chances with the other extortionists out there. But believe me, the lone wolf doesn't stand a chance against the pack.

At least, not in reality.

 

[manifold]

True there can be different defintions of fair. But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.

You want the rich to be taxed more yet the fact is taxing the more will not provide you the extra money for all your precious government entitlements. Regardless of you manipulate the tax code, tax revenues always tend to stay between %15-%20 of GDP.

The 'definition' of fair ain't got squat to do with it. It's one's subjective 'determination' of fair that is at issue. And due to the subjectivity of the matter, opinions naturally vary.

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying I can't defend my made up definition of a word.

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying uncle.

 

[Gadawg73]

I worked until 11 pm last night.
WHY is someone that has been undisciplined, made wrong choices one after another as habit, sits at home and watches American Idol and is addicted to mooching entitled to any of my earnings?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wealth can be ONLY controlled when one has EARNED the wealth OR EARNED the ability to control it.

 

[sparky]

I worked until 11 pm last night.
WHY is someone that has been undisciplined, made wrong choices one after another as habit, sits at home and watches American Idol and is addicted to mooching entitled to any of my earnings?

Because like myself you are a sm biz , and the backbone of the social contract with America Gadawg.

my advice here would be , seek those social accolades in return

trust me on this, it's all about how you crunch #'s in your books

 

[Bern80]

The 'definition' of fair ain't got squat to do with it. It's one's subjective 'determination' of fair that is at issue. And due to the subjectivity of the matter, opinions naturally vary.

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying I can't defend my made up definition of a word.

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying uncle.

No I didn't. I argued that how you defined fair fits no definition of the term. To which you essentially replied that you get to define words however you feel like.

 

[manifold]

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying I can't defend my made up definition of a word.

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying uncle.

No I didn't. I argued that how you defined fair fits no definition of the term. To which you essentially replied that you get to define words however you feel like.

You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.

 

[Bern80]

Essentially a chicken shit way of saying uncle.

No I didn't. I argued that how you defined fair fits no definition of the term. To which you essentially replied that you get to define words however you feel like.

You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.

I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.
A person with no money, dependent on government services, can claim all he wants that it is fair that people with money have it taken from them to provide for him for no other reason than they have the resources and he doesn't. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it is.

 

[manifold]

No I didn't. I argued that how you defined fair fits no definition of the term. To which you essentially replied that you get to define words however you feel like.

You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.

I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.

Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.

 

[DiamondDave]

You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.

I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.

Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.

Hence ANY concept of fairness, whether it be held by one or a number of persons, is FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.. and has NO place in government

 

[manifold]

I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.

Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.

Hence ANY concept of fairness, whether it be held by one or a number of persons, is FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.. and has NO place in government

Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.

 

[Wiseacre]

Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody. IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others.

There is a story about the founding fathers discussing the building of the Erie Canal in upstate New York, and whether federal funds should be used. It did not pass because it was believed that gov't money should not be spent on a project or program unless everybody benefited. Too bad we got away from that line of thinking, we wouldn't be in the financial mess we're in.

 

[DiamondDave]

Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.

Hence ANY concept of fairness, whether it be held by one or a number of persons, is FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.. and has NO place in government

Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.

No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants

 

[manifold]

Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody. IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others.

As does collecting tax to fund an army. Is that also immoral?

 

[manifold]

Hence ANY concept of fairness, whether it be held by one or a number of persons, is FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.. and has NO place in government

Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.

No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants

Hmmm.... so your solution to this emotionally charged issue, for which disparate opinions abound, is to swap out the word 'fair' for the word 'equal'.

Wow man, you're a genius! There couldn't possibly any disagreement now.

 

[Wiseacre]

Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody. IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others.

As does collecting tax to fund an army. Is that also immoral?

No, national defense and security are important duties of gov't that individuals cannot do themselves. Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense, and it is therefore moral. Not to mention the fact that such respnsibilities are specifically defined in our Constitution.

There's a difference between taxing people's money for the benefit of all as opposed to spending that money to the benefit of only some citizens. There are exceptions, like supporting those who cannot support themselves, and those who need temporary help, like the people who've lost everything as a result of the tornados or can't find work due to the recession. But arbitrarily deciding what's fair and redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't just because they don't have as much is immoral IMHO.

 

[manifold]

Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.

No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants

Hmmm.... so your solution to this emotionally charged issue, for which disparate opinions abound, is to swap out the word 'fair' for the word 'equal'.

Wow man, you're a genius! There couldn't possibly any disagreement now.

You can disagree all you want.. you have the FREEDOM to do so.. the very same and EQUALLY PROTECTED freedoms as every other citizen... not some subjective freedom that is different for you than for someone else that is funded by those who do not have the freedom and who are also paying for it via taxation