Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dblack]

ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.

 

[Full-Auto]

ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.

Hat Tip!!!

 

[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.

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

We already have whole groups within our population who are essentially among the permanently unemployed because they have no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills. It is hard enough now for those who want to break out of that cycle to convince somebody to take a chance on them at the current minimum wage so they can gain experience, develop a work ethic, and/or develop marketable skills and make themselves valuable enough to an employer to merit a 'living wage'.

Put the minimum wage at 'living wage' level, whatever that might be deemed to be, and you shut more and more of the 'poor' out of the labor market altogether. Most especially this will be true in places like New York City or parts of California and elsewhere that have very high costs of living. It costs way more to live in San Francisco than it costs to live in Lubbock TX. How do you propose to even establish a 'living wage' with such wide variations between various parts of the country?

In a free market system, labor is any other commodity and it is to everybody's benefit that market forces determine its value. Those who do the drill to make their labor more valuable will earn more. Those who don't do what is necessary to make their labor a desirable commodity will earn less. To artificially put price controls or subsidies on labor have the same effect as putting price controls or subsidies on any other product. And whenever any product is priced out of the market, it collapses or the government steps in to prop it up which becomes a viscious cycle.

I agree that enforcement of immigration laws would help enormously in areas that have large numbers of illegals.

 

[Ame®icano]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

Your brain is truly warped righty. For your brain to write the above and actually believe it takes someone truly delusional. YES, the government does take money from and give it to othes. It's called Social Security you dumb ass just as an example.

Guess what Bern?

You belong to a society. As part of that society you are expected to contribute. You contribute to Social Security, you get to draw out of it. If not, you get nothing

Following your example, those who work and pay their taxes can draw their unemployment benefits when they lose their jobs. Great.

I'm curious, out of 50 million on food stamps, how many contributed into the system so they can draw from it? Ball park...

 

[eflatminor]

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?

Not moral. After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery? Read Mises.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.

No shit huh?

 

[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?

Not moral. After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery? Read Mises.

Another active thread is something like "A Question Conservatives Won't Answer" or some such as that. What you hit on could be entitled "A Questions Liberals Won't Answer" or some such as that.

I have long maintained that it can be a moral and virtuous act act for Citizen A to voluntarily help out Citizen B. In my repertoire of definitions, that is what charity is.

However, when Citizen A is required to donate property or labor to help out Citizen B, in my repertoire of definitions, that is one definition of what slavery is.

How is that moral?

 

[dblack]

Another active thread is something like "A Question Conservatives Won't Answer" or some such as that. What you hit on could be entitled "A Questions Liberals Won't Answer" or some such as that.

I have long maintained that it can be a moral and virtuous act act for Citizen A to voluntarily help out Citizen B. In my repertoire of definitions, that is what charity is.

However, when Citizen A is required to donate property or labor to help out Citizen B, in my repertoire of definitions, that is one definition of what slavery is.

How is that moral?

Ain't it grand? It's like 'outsourcing' charity. You can give to the poor, and do it with other people's money! Best of both worlds.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

...

That's called theft which is immoral.

Not in eyes of thieves.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

...

That's called theft which is immoral.

So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?

Only if they are forced to work.

 

[eflatminor]

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage

Well hell, why not raise it more than that? If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000? Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!

 

[Foxfyre]

That's called theft which is immoral.

So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?

Only if they are forced to work.

I can actually see a truly modest minimum wage to ensure that nobody is coerced into working for nothing. In my opinion, however, the minimum wage was to ensure that there would not be slave labor but it was never intended to be a so-called 'living wage'. It was intended to provide a modest compensation while people gained experience, learned a trade, developed a work ethic, and acquired marketable skills. People who do that don't ever stay at minimum wage because their labor usually steadily gains in value and they can command a higher wage.

Require employers to pay people with no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills a 'living wage' and I guarantee those people won't ever have a chance to get an education, develop a work ethic, acquire references and marketable skills. Or, there will be even less incentive for kids to stay in school or make something of themselves. If they can merit a 'living wage' for doing nothing, that's exactly what a lot of them will choose to do.

 

[Againsheila]

So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?

Only if they are forced to work.

I can actually see a truly modest minimum wage to ensure that nobody is coerced into working for nothing. In my opinion, however, the minimum wage was to ensure that there would not be slave labor but it was never intended to be a so-called 'living wage'. It was intended to provide a modest compensation while people gained experience, learned a trade, developed a work ethic, and acquired marketable skills. People who do that don't ever stay at minimum wage because their labor usually steadily gains in value and they can command a higher wage.

Require employers to pay people with no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills a 'living wage' and I guarantee those people won't ever have a chance to get an education, develop a work ethic, acquire references and marketable skills. Or, there will be even less incentive for kids to stay in school or make something of themselves. If they can merit a 'living wage' for doing nothing, that's exactly what a lot of them will choose to do.

Once upon a time, mw was a living wage. You could afford your own apartment, to go to college part time and to buy a car.....

Now you claim those same people have no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills, what happened????

My brother was one of those people (I was late, by the time I started working mw lost it's spending power). I spent time in the berry fields, I worked as a maid, I babysat, I did whatever it took to make money and you think I somehow have less education, less work ethic than my brother simply because I was born later? When mw didn't have the spending power it did for my brother born 7 years earlier?

Face it, greed is what's wrong with our society. The top 21% of our country has seen their income grow by more that 250% since the 70's while the rest of us have seen our wages stagnate and drop. Work ethic has NOTHING to do with it. Greed has everything to do with it.

 

[Againsheila]

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage

Well hell, why not raise it more than that? If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000? Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

 

[dblack]

I think I could push for one change regarding wealth redistribution, it would be to require that it be done honestly. If it is morally justifiable, and if those campaigning for it have the courage of their convictions, they shouldn't hide the practice behind obscuring facades like income tax or minimum wages laws.

The point of taxes is to raise funds for government, not redistribute wealth. If your goal is to take from the rich and give to the poor - just do it. Pass laws that straight-out confiscate money from people you don't think deserve it and give it to those you think do. I might still be opposed to such a plan, but at least I'd have more respect for that than the usual shell games we a play. Plus, it wouldn't pollute our tax code.

 

[eflatminor]

There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage

Well hell, why not raise it more than that? If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000? Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!

I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?

You just don't get it. Why should you be able to force a man to not work? That's exactly the result of ANY minimum wage. Older Americans, the uneducated, young workers...many of whom are perfectly willing to work are prevent from doing so by your government meddling. Not everyone wanting to work has a family to support. Some just want to earn a few extra dollars. You're position ends up driving those willing to work away from a job and on the dole. Of course, I understand that once they're addicted to government handouts, they will vote for the re-distributionists but I find the whole idea disgusting. Shame on you.

 

[Ame®icano]

Correct.

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

Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

Simple.

This particular 'public' service offers much greater value to the owner of an expensive home, located relatively close to a fire station, than it does to the owner of a decrepit shack located so far away from the nearest fire station that even in the event of a fire they wouldn't be much help.


Edit: My apologies. You asked me to show how it takes from haves and gives to have nots. In this case it's actually the other way around. But it's still redistribution of wealth.

No, it's not, since have nots didn't pay into this particular "public" service.

Btw, greatest value from this service has the fire station.

 

[HenryBHough]

You can legislate a minimum wage.

You cannot legislate employers deciding that it's too expensive to keep employees.

You cannot legislate that businesses hire people.

 

[ShackledNation]

People are working jobs that pay wages below a decent living. Make such jobs illegal and people will be better off.

Reality? People are unemployed.

Welcome to the fallacy of minimum wage.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?"

Nobody is forbidding people who work at McD's to manage hedge funds on their own.