Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Wiseacre]

Too bad we went off track, huh Foxy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Too bad we went off track, huh Foxy?

I think its too bad how the values, concepts, and inspiration of the Founders has been chipped away and eroded by those who hold a different view of virtue . Like the ancient civiliztions, they look not to themselves for strength and prosperity but rather clamor for a king to protect, save, and feed them. And the more they are able to transfer power and property to the 'king', the more helpless and needy they become.

The first quote I posted by John Adams has proved to be absolutely prophetic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights.

Actual wealth comes from production, not ownership.

Please tell me you knew this.

Please tell me why you think I am an Amish scholar and hip on their affairs.

Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.

Except when they start foreign wars of aggression and overthrow nascent democracies to increase their profit margins.

Non sequitur....Go bake cookies or stuff a clipper ship in a bottle. Yes the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell has access to the "button"...Facepalm

 

[thereisnospoon]

Gee, how sweet of you. People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage. Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them. Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.

You play a tune with one note. It's the sound one makes when they are whining.
The value of a worker is directly proportional to their ability to perform the job for which they were hired at a wage that is appropriate for the position.
You make assumptions based on your emotions.
I am a business owner and an employee of another business.
My value to my employer is based on cost and performance. I strive to improve my skill set which includes finding ways to operate the business as efficiently as possible while keeping costs as low as possible.
In my own business, I will only accept work that will allow me to turn a profit.

Margins are tight due to competition. So I must keep my costs down.
Here's an example of how your notion that if there were no workers the company would not exist is false.
Let's say the XYZ Widget company decides they need to be more competitive. The management looks for ways to get their product to market cheaper and faster. If XYZ does not do this, they will face the wrath of their investors.
So, XYZ finds these automated computerized machines to produce their product at a fraction of the cost. XYZ decides to lease the machines and train some of their workers to run them. They pace the machines at a small plant in another state. The new operation is a success. XYZ decides the new equipment is the way to go.....Now XYZ needs far fewer employees. Those with the aptitude to learn the new technology are offered the opportunity to stay on with XYZ. The other people are no longer needed and are offered severance packages and thanked for their service.
The company dictates to the labor market the level of employment that is needed. Not the other way around.
On a smaller scale, a construction company owner and his partner tired of the hassles of finding good people to do the work, become frustrated with the entire process and the general attitude of the construction labor market decide to forgo hiring any more employees and also lay off the ones they have. The partners decide to do the work themselves. The company exists without the labor.
Once again, labor requires business. Business does not require labor.

You are confusing wage earners/employees with labor. In your example, you have replaced human labor with machine labor and the partners labor is labor.

Basic economic scenerio. Man catches one fish every three days with his hands. The fish is consumption good. Man fashions spear using Land, the fallen branches of a tree that no one claims ownership to, Labor, and Enterprise. The spear is now capital. Man spears 3 fish a day, increasing the production of a consumption good.

Without consumers, there is no business. If the consumers are too broke to buy your product because you have eliminated all labor, which is what consumers bring to the market, or reduced it to subsistence levels then you better be in the subsistence business.

Sense of entitlement is the belief that one should be able to have what somebody else has and the government should make that other person give it to him or her.

Or the sense that because you received it, you earned it.

Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.

No longer true. Management will hire illegals before it raises wages.

In the example of the construction company yes the owners do the work. The OP's point was that the construction company would not exist without labor. By that the OP means hired help.
No the sense of entitlement is exactly what it is. Those who think they are either owed a living( job) or the largess of those who produce. While you were out, "entitlement" has taken on a new meaning. Entitlement applies to those who are takers. Learn it. Live it.
Home Depot, Lowe's and other major retailers DO NOT hire illegals. So you can stow that nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability. They fall into two categories:

1) Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2) Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:

. . . .when examining the creation of the world’s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:

“He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know why it should be that ‘the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest’. He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.”

Woods follows this up, later:

“Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars.”

Think about that. For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.

 

[Chris]

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability. They fall into two categories:

1) Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2) Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:

. . . .when examining the creation of the world’s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:

“He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know why it should be that ‘the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest’. He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.”

Woods follows this up, later:

“Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars.”

Think about that. For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.

This is completely bogus.

There were many more people living in poverty in 1933 than today.

But thanks for playing.

 

[westwall]

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability. They fall into two categories:

1) Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2) Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:

. . . .when examining the creation of the world’s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:

“He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know why it should be that ‘the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest’. He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.”

Woods follows this up, later:

“Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars.”

Think about that. For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.

This is completely bogus.

There were many more people living in poverty in 1933 than today.

But thanks for playing.

Mmmm, not exactly. It is actually quite difficult to find the exact numbers for 1933, 25% unemployment is commonly used so I will use that as the poverty percentage. Those who actually had jobs actually did pretty well because the cost of goods and services dropped significantly during the depression so if you had money you could get a lot with it. The current rate (well 2009 the most recent year I could find) the rate is 14.1 percent. I suspect it is higher now.

The poverty line also means different things today. In the 30's if you lived below the poverty line you had to go to the soup lines for your meal. Nowadays those at the poverty line pull down an average of 560 per month if they have children. They also get Section 8 housing assistance, WIC, and other programs I can't name off the top of my head.

In one news story i saw of a welfare family in New Orleans I saw a nice large flat screen TV on the wall. So poverty is far different today then it was then.





National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, poverty is all relative and the definitions changed many times during the 20th Century to present.

The bottom line is that labor is a market driven commodity. If you have too many people looking for work, labor will be worth less than when there are few people looking for work. When the government elects to artificially set labor via minimum wage or requiring union wages for government contracts, etc., it throws everything out of balance and it is usually the 'poor' who will suffer most.

There is no unalienable right to a job or to a 'living wage'. There is an unalienable right to take advantage of whatever is available to train and educate ourselves to make a good living. The more we look to government to do that for us, the less opportunity overall there will be.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What does James Madison- “Father of the Constitution” have to say

James Madison- James Madison letter to James Robertson

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of
proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”​

 

[ReginaG]

If someone is truly deserving of welfare then fine, but someone who is lazy and milks the system they can fly a kite.

you definitely got it right.

 

[editec]

When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

Poverty knows NO morality.

Your home defensive arsenals will not solve that reality.

Equitable economic systems will.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Redistribution of wealth violates the 13th amendment.

 

[editec]

We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.

Since welfare is cheaper (for the winners of capitalism) than economic justice, we have gone down the road to a welfare state.

Of course now we can cut off all welfare, but we're going to need a police state to cope with the fallout of THAT decision.

Poeple with nothing to lose are a dangerous breed, folks.

 

[Againsheila]

I just love it when people who make big bucks, mostly off the backs of the poor workers, talk about "morality" and wealth redistribution. Face it, if they had morals, we wouldn't need wealth redistribution, the poorest paid worker among us would make a living wage.

There are a few "very few" business owners who recognize that they wouldn't be where they are without their workers. They pay them and compensate them accordingly. Too bad the CEO's of the big corporations who make 500 to 1000 times what their workers make didn't attend the same business school as those few business owners.

 

[Foxfyre]

We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.

Since welfare is cheaper (for the winners of capitalism) than economic justice, we have gone down the road to a welfare state.

Of course now we can cut off all welfare, but we're going to need a police state to cope with the fallout of THAT decision.

Poeple with nothing to lose are a dangerous breed, folks.

And yet there was a time, not all that long ago in America, in which many more people were poor by today's standards but there was much much less crime, violence, and anger among the population. This would suggest that there is little correlation between poverty and crime. It would suggest that there is correlation in a sense of entitlement that it is our right to be provided with what we do not have and that it is okay to force others to give it to us. And that in my opinion is why redistribution of wealth through any other process than voluntary charity and a free market system is immoral.

 

[Againsheila]

We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.

Since welfare is cheaper (for the winners of capitalism) than economic justice, we have gone down the road to a welfare state.

Of course now we can cut off all welfare, but we're going to need a police state to cope with the fallout of THAT decision.

Poeple with nothing to lose are a dangerous breed, folks.

And yet there was a time, not all that long ago in America, in which many more people were poor by today's standards but there was much much less crime, violence, and anger among the population. This would suggest that there is little correlation between poverty and crime. It would suggest that there is correlation in a sense of entitlement that it is our right to be provided with what we do not have and that it is okay to force others to give it to us. And that in my opinion is why redistribution of wealth through any other process than voluntary charity and a free market system is immoral.

And the highest tax rate during that time was 70%, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and we didn't have the huge income gap we have now.

You don't think the workers are entitled to a decent share of the profits of the company? How dare they believe that...

In fact, Americans are having children at replacement value and if it weren't for our huge influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, the lowest paid workers would be making a living wage, supply and demand. Add to that the exporting of our jobs and our factories and we're in a world of hurt...it's enough to make anybody angry.

 

[jillian]

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?

i think it's terribly immoral to redistribute wealth to the top 1%

 

[Againsheila]

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability. They fall into two categories:

1) Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2) Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:

. . . .when examining the creation of the world’s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:

“He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know why it should be that ‘the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest’. He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.”

Woods follows this up, later:

“Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars.”

Think about that. For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage, eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration, problem solved.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability. They fall into two categories:

1) Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2) Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:

. . . .when examining the creation of the world’s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:

“He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know why it should be that ‘the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest’. He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.”

Woods follows this up, later:

“Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars.”

Think about that. For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage, eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration, problem solved.

What the hell is a "living wage"?

 

[dblack]

What the hell is a "living wage"?

It's 'minimum wage' ++

Because, you know, who want's 'minimum'?