Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[thereisnospoon]

You are right, the pie is getting bigger,unfortunately, only a small percentage of the people are getting a bigger piece. Like I said, if things went according to history we would have already had our Bastille day. No country can long survive with the vast majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. I've come up with some ways to fix the problem, you just don't believe there is a problem. You thinks it's perfectly fine to have the vast majority of our country's wealth in the hands of very few individuals.

I feel for you when the revolution finally comes. I don't think you'll survive it, you won't even know what happened, or why.

Using the force of government sanctions to confiscate the rightful property of certain people to transfer it to those who did not earn it is not a "fix"....

Making obscene amounts of money off the backs of the working people is not "rightful" in anyway shape or form.

You'll never understand opportunity education, achievement or success because you believe money or wealth to exist in a vacuum.
instead of doing things the right way which is doing what ever you can to the best of your ability to improve your situation, you wring your hands worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Whether Joe Smith makes a million per year and john smith makes minimum wage is of no consequence to you or anyone else.
BTW, no amount of money is obscene. That is an opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. One day someone else could decide you make an obscene amount of money. Or they may think your home is inappropriate.
You people who dream up ways to take from others will never get what you want.
Your blathering about revolution is idiotic.

 

[Againsheila]

Using the force of government sanctions to confiscate the rightful property of certain people to transfer it to those who did not earn it is not a "fix"....

Making obscene amounts of money off the backs of the working people is not "rightful" in anyway shape or form.

You'll never understand opportunity education, achievement or success because you believe money or wealth to exist in a vacuum.
instead of doing things the right way which is doing what ever you can to the best of your ability to improve your situation, you wring your hands worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Whether Joe Smith makes a million per year and john smith makes minimum wage is of no consequence to you or anyone else.
BTW, no amount of money is obscene. That is an opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. One day someone else could decide you make an obscene amount of money. Or they may think your home is inappropriate.
You people who dream up ways to take from others will never get what you want.
Your blathering about revolution is idiotic.

Not really. Read some history. Particularly about the French Revolution, but don't forget the American Revolution as well. Pay attention to the facts, not the myths. For example, the Boston Tea Party took place because the tea tax was too low, not too high. Most of our forefathers were smugglers and with the low tax, they couldn't make enough selling their smuggled tea.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Free market? Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions? We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did. What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich. Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy. Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?

I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila. In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives. America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.

No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy. As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.

No. The government cannot do this. What you suggest would be a massive unfunded mandate which would cause massive loss of employment. This kind of interference from government would absolutely crush the economy. Small business which employs 60% of American workers would become non existent.
Do you really think the federal government could simply wave a magic wand and the money for your silly idea would magically appear?.
Please stop this absurdity.
Until you can walk a mile in a business owner's shoes, you have no right to an opinion on this matter.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Making obscene amounts of money off the backs of the working people is not "rightful" in anyway shape or form.

You'll never understand opportunity education, achievement or success because you believe money or wealth to exist in a vacuum.
instead of doing things the right way which is doing what ever you can to the best of your ability to improve your situation, you wring your hands worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Whether Joe Smith makes a million per year and john smith makes minimum wage is of no consequence to you or anyone else.
BTW, no amount of money is obscene. That is an opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. One day someone else could decide you make an obscene amount of money. Or they may think your home is inappropriate.
You people who dream up ways to take from others will never get what you want.
Your blathering about revolution is idiotic.

Not really. Read some history. Particularly about the French Revolution, but don't forget the American Revolution as well. Pay attention to the facts, not the myths. For example, the Boston Tea Party took place because the tea tax was too low, not too high. Most of our forefathers were smugglers and with the low tax, they couldn't make enough selling their smuggled tea.

Holy shit. You're a nut.
The French Revolution? Please. France was a monarchy. Not a representative republic.
You live in a parallel universe.
Comparing the USA to Feudal France is lie comparing Texas Toast to Silly Putty. The latter I believe to reside between your ears.

 

[shintao]

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.

The Independent American is one who can work and pay no taxes, retaining all profits to himself. There are many rich independent citizens who contribute nothing to society, family, or community. To do so is Socialism.

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.

America does like free loaders, and gives mass amounts of foreign aid & welfare & our military machine & corporate aid. Christians dole out holiday dinners & gifts & medical aid programs, etc. I think a handful of greedy bastard Cons do not like freeloaders, but outside of the puss they spew, Real Americans are very supportive of others.

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?

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

 

[dblack]

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

???

 

[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.

The Independent American is one who can work and pay no taxes, retaining all profits to himself. There are many rich independent citizens who contribute nothing to society, family, or community. To do so is Socialism.

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.

America does like free loaders, and gives mass amounts of foreign aid & welfare & our military machine & corporate aid. Christians dole out holiday dinners & gifts & medical aid programs, etc. I think a handful of greedy bastard Cons do not like freeloaders, but outside of the puss they spew, Real Americans are very supportive of others.

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?

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

???

Really....I too am shocked at the absurd views of some people.
Legendary bank robber Jesse James when asked why he robbed banks responded by saying "because that is where the money is"...
Well , these libs have the same notion. Only that it is anyone who they deem as having enough become the robbed. Only these people use government to do their bidding under the guise of compassion.

 

[Vel]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

There is no ‘wealth redistribution’ program in the United States. Food Stamps aren’t wealth redistribution because the majority of recipients are children, the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor. TANF isn’t wealth redistribution because it requires community service or a similar activity to remain eligible, it’s also time-limited. Unemployment comp and workman’s comp aren’t wealth redistribution, nor are they welfare, they’re insurance benefits. Those receiving UC are also required to job search or retrain for other work to remain eligible. SSI is for disabled individuals, SSDI is for those who have worked more than 10 years on a pay roll and become disabled, along with Medicare, and Medicaid is mostly for children, the elderly, and disabled.

The myth of ‘wealth redistribution’ is predicated on ignorance and/or political dogma designed to demonize the disadvantaged and poor for political gain.

Just curious, but where does the money come from that funds those programs if there is no wealth distribution?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

The Independent American is one who can work and pay no taxes, retaining all profits to himself. There are many rich independent citizens who contribute nothing to society, family, or community. To do so is Socialism.

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.

America does like free loaders, and gives mass amounts of foreign aid & welfare & our military machine & corporate aid. Christians dole out holiday dinners & gifts & medical aid programs, etc. I think a handful of greedy bastard Cons do not like freeloaders, but outside of the puss they spew, Real Americans are very supportive of others.

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?

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

That's a slippery slope shintao. One that I wish would be done away with.

All that's required, based on Supreme Court rulings, for legislation to be legal under the General Welfare Clause is that some argument be made for why it makes people's lives better. Problem is, that's completely subjective. Anything can be made to sound like it will make your life better. Forcing all middle class Americans to shop exclusively at Wal-Mart can be made to sound like it's bettering their lives. A power so broad and vague can't possibly be good for this country, unless you believe that living in a dictatorship is good.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

 

[Chris]

The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.

False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

 

[Political Junky]

False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

Yep.

 

[Foxfyre]

False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

Oh yeah. By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one. They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury. Nope. Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet. Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession. It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc. Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed. But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.

 

[Chris]

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

Oh yeah. By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one. They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury. Nope. Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet. Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession. It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc. Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed. But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.

Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. We need to raise taxes and pull back the military empire.

 

[Chris]

Correction please. The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare." The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that. They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another. Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

Oh yeah. By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one. They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury. Nope. Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet. Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession. It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc. Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed. But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.

We have a strong economy, but the money is concentrated in too few hands.

Glad you get that.

 

[Foxfyre]

90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.

Oh yeah. By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one. They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury. Nope. Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet. Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession. It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc. Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed. But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.

Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. We need to raise taxes and pull back the military empire.

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a more balanced budget by a strong GOP majority in Congress.

Bush and the GOP congress pulled us out of a recession that could have been made devastating by 9/11 by lowering taxes for everybody.

I don't expect you to acknowledge that. But those who haven't drunk the I hate Bush and the Republicans and I worship Obama kool-ade just might read up on it from a reliable source and know what I'm saying here is the truth.

 

[Chris]

Oh yeah. By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one. They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury. Nope. Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet. Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession. It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc. Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed. But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.

Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. We need to raise taxes and pull back the military empire.

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a more balanced budget by a strong GOP majority in Congress.

Bush and the GOP congress pulled us out of a recession that could have been made devastating by 9/11 by lowering taxes for everybody.

I don't expect you to acknowledge that. But those who haven't drunk the I hate Bush and the Republicans and I worship Obama kool-ade just might read up on it from a reliable source and know what I'm saying here is the truth.

Horseshit.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. The Republicans almost destroyed America.

We have to raise taxes.

 

[Chris]

Think about this my friend...

What if half the people in the United States suddenly doubled their net worth?

 

[Foxfyre]

Going off to bed reciting over and over:

"Lord give me the grace and courage to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises of futility." "Lord, give me the grace and . . . ."