Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Chris]

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 . . . ."

You really are arrogant.

How sad.

 

[elvis]

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 . . . ."

You really are arrogant.

How sad.

You're a load that should have been spit.

How sad.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

But the GOP congress forced Clinton to raise taxes? Uh huh.

 

[shintao]

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

???

First Bank of the United StatesMain article: First Bank of the United States
In 1791, former Morris aide and chief advocate for Northern merchantile interests, Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, stuck a deal with Southern lawmakers to ensure the continuation of Morris's Bank project; in exchange for support by the South for a national bank, Hamilton agreed to ensure sufficient support to have the national or federal capital moved from its temporary Northern location, New York, to a Southern location on the Potomac. As a result, the First Bank of the United States (1791–1811) was chartered by Congress within the year and signed by George Washington soon after.

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But the GOP congress forced Clinton to raise taxes? Uh huh.

The Clinton tax hike was in 1993 when he still had a Democratic Congress. The GOP didn't take over until after the 1994 election.

The GOP Congress pushed through a tax cut in 1997 that really boosted the economy and created the balanced budget and Clinton to his credit did sign that bill.

Pretty good discussion on all that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Chris]

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.

But the GOP congress forced Clinton to raise taxes? Uh huh.

The Clinton tax hike was in 1993 when he still had a Democratic Congress. The GOP didn't take over until after the 1994 election.

The GOP Congress pushed through a tax cut in 1997 that really boosted the economy and created the balanced budget and Clinton to his credit did sign that bill.

Pretty good discussion on all that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom | The Heritage Foundation

45% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.

Our taxes are too low, that's why we have a huge deficit.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the wealthy.

 

[dblack]

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

???

First Bank of the United StatesMain article: First Bank of the United States
In 1791, former Morris aide .....

I have no idea what you're going on about here. My confusion was over your statement that our government was based on the general welfare clause.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

A living mw would benefit all. It would make us once again a first world power instead of a 3rd world nation. Only 3rd world nations have such high income gaps and they lead to a whole lot of problems including rebellion.

Also, we have people who need our help, like the disabled. Do you believe they shouldn't receive government help?

 

[Wolfmoon]

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?

It’s just another government ploy to pull the wool over the sheep’s eyes and deflect the truth. The government has a 30 year plan to change the face of America.

1. Strip Americans from their wealth.

2. Take America’s guns away.

3. Put America on her knees so, what they offer us looks good.

4. Become a “One World Government” “One World Order”, where the U.N. is the ruler of all lands and the Constitution is a dead useless piece of paper.

 

[Chris]

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?

It’s just another government ploy to pull the wool over the sheep’s eyes and deflect the truth. The government has a 30 year plan to change the face of America.

1. Strip Americans from their wealth.

2. Take America’s guns away.

3. Put America on her knees so, what they offer us looks good.

4. Become a “One World Government” “One World Order”, where the U.N. is the ruler of all lands and the Constitution is a dead useless piece of paper.

What a delusional post.

 

[bripat9643]

Think about this my friend...

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

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're a load that should have been spit.

How sad.

Now that's what I call eloquence....

 

[Againsheila]

Think about this my friend...

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

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

 

[DiamondDave]

Think about this my friend...

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

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

Those workers were FORCED to work there?? You were FORCED to shop there? Those workers could not apply anywhere else??

People are free to go for their own success or failure, whether you like their legal business practices or not

 

[Foxfyre]

Think about this my friend...

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

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Exactly. Chris got one thing right and only one thing that I've seen so far when he said 48% don't pay tax. I'm assuming he meant wage earners because that is the group that figure applies to and he's a tad low on the percentage but close.

So we have half of working Americans paying little or no federal income tax and that leaves the other half to carry all the load. But his ilk wants the half that carries all the load to carry a bigger load.

I say reduce the load on the half currently carrying it because that is the group that is furnishing jobs to the bottom half. Lower business taxes, eliminate all regulation we don't absolutely have to have, allow industries to do their job, and that will free up a lot more resources and capital to encourage new hiring and also increase wages and benefits that would be advisable when more people are competing for good people.

I would do it by going to a flat tax across the board so that everybody is paying the same percentage at whatever level of income. A reasonable flat exemption would keep from taking food out of the mouths of the truly working poor, but otherwise everybody, richer and less rich would be paying something into the system and also suffering the same consequences of whatever tax policies are imposed by our fearless leaders. Redistribution of wealth would happen via the free market which is the only way it can happen without doing more harm than good.

No more would half the country have incentive to keep electing incompetent legislators just because they keep the gravy train going but everybody, rich and less rich, would have more incentive to elect the best people we can get. And if we remove the Federal government's ability to use the people's money for any kind of benefit to any special group, we have solved almost all of the corruption and graft associated with 'redistribution of wealth.'

 

[westwall]

Think about this my friend...

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

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

My family despises Wallyworld and we don't shop there. Their corporate philosophy is totally counter to what we believe in. They are responsible in large part for the economic decline of this country. They want to sell products to the masses so cheaply that the only way a company can produce them cheap enough is to go overseas (mainly China) which in turn drives US companies out of business.

Anyone who shops at Wallyworld is contributing to that. People who work there do it of their own free will. Oftentimes it is the only job to be had, which is sad. But those who shop there are contributing to the problem.

 

[DiamondDave]

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

My family despises Wallyworld and we don't shop there. Their corporate philosophy is totally counter to what we believe in. They are responsible in large part for the economic decline of this country. They want to sell products to the masses so cheaply that the only way a company can produce them cheap enough is to go overseas (mainly China) which in turn drives US companies out of business.

Anyone who shops at Wallyworld is contributing to that. People who work there do it of their own free will. Oftentimes it is the only job to be had, which is sad. But those who shop there are contributing to the problem.

And this is commendable.. if you don't like WallyWorld, this is how you speak against it... not some government intervention bulshit... you don't like them, don't work there or don't shop there... my Fiancee approaches it this way... me, I will go there if there is a special low price on something I want... or if I have to do a lot of quick shopping and I only have time for 1 stop (and i can get the food and other things all in one quick stop).... but I sooner go to local produce stands or SuperTarget or wherever else ona regular basis

 

[dblack]

Anyone who shops at Wallyworld is contributing to that. People who work there do it of their own free will. Oftentimes it is the only job to be had, which is sad. But those who shop there are contributing to the problem.

Wal-Mart dominates by negotiating for special subsidies and privilege from local government. This is neither the fault of the hourly employees who work for Wal-Mart, nor the people who shop there. It's the fault of government officials who sell out equal protection for money.

 

[Againsheila]

By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

Those workers were FORCED to work there?? You were FORCED to shop there? Those workers could not apply anywhere else??

People are free to go for their own success or failure, whether you like their legal business practices or not

Yes, many of those workers were "forced" to work there through lack of opportunities elsewhere. Yes, I am "forced" to shop there as they are the only store I can find which carries velcro fasten shoes for my adult autistic son.

BTW, the Walmart family INHERITED their wealth. Sam Walton, the man who built up the business on the practice of "made in America" died and I'll bet he's turning over in his grave at what his children have done to the business.

Yeah, the Walmart family is free to do pretty much what they want. Which is why they've gone to court for LOCKING their employees in at night. You really ought to look up their "business practices".

If I had another way to get those velcro shoes, I wouldn't set foot inside a Walmart store the rest of my life.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?

Those workers were FORCED to work there?? You were FORCED to shop there? Those workers could not apply anywhere else??

People are free to go for their own success or failure, whether you like their legal business practices or not

Yes, many of those workers were "forced" to work there through lack of opportunities elsewhere. Yes, I am "forced" to shop there as they are the only store I can find which carries velcro fasten shoes for my adult autistic son.

BTW, the Walmart family INHERITED their wealth. Sam Walton, the man who built up the business on the practice of "made in America" died and I'll bet he's turning over in his grave at what his children have done to the business.

Yeah, the Walmart family is free to do pretty much what they want. Which is why they've gone to court for LOCKING their employees in at night. You really ought to look up their "business practices".

If I had another way to get those velcro shoes, I wouldn't set foot inside a Walmart store the rest of my life.

Wrong

What forced them not to move or work at McDonalds or start a home cleaning service or anything else??

If you don't like that they got an inheritance passed down in the family from others who put in effort.. or that they expanded it even more.. too bad.. too sad... boo freaking hoo

You're angry and don't like it and instead of using your choice, you wish to punish them in other ways thru big mommy government...

Don't like them, don't shop or work there.... simple as that