Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Ame®icano]

Comrade Chris is obsessed with rich.
Talking about beating the drum... or just being jealous, rather desperate to be just like them. Seek help man... seriously.

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.

400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined.

The wealth has already been redistributed.

Envy has nothing to do with it.

The wealth has already been redistributed to the super rich through tax loopholes and a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivatives Ponzi scheme.

And all you can say is, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Click on the link...

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com

The hardest working people make the least money.

The Mexican farm workers and the people at McDonalds.

This country is totally fucked up. We are running huge deficits because the Republicans won't raise taxes on the rich by 3%.

A tic like Big Oil?

A tic like Wall Street bankers?

A tic like every other blood sucking lobbyist in Washington?

How do they "produce wealth?" By stealing HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR DERIVATIVE SCHEME???

Horse shit.

The top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year running the Ponzi scheme. They skimmed it off the top of THE SAVINGS OF HARD WORKING AMERICANS. And then, the Ponzi scheme ran out, the government GAVE THEM BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY STOLE AND NO ONE WENT TO JAIL!!!

I think a government check is a government check.

My father fought in WW II and never got a penny from the government.

What I believe is that our taxes are too low to support the military empire we are trying to run. So we have to either abandon our empire or raise taxes.

There is PLENTY OF WEALTH in this country. It is just concentrated in the hands of a very few people.

Only 6% of mortgages were in default when the market collapsed.

The market collapsed because Wall Street was running a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme. Just to give you an idea of how big a scam that was, the GDP of all the countries in the world in one year is $50 trillion dollars. The only one that warned about what was about to happen was Warren Buffett. You can read about it at this link...

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy.

Or steal it like the hedge fund managers?

4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.

We have the greatest disparity of wealth in the industrialized world.

It is an enormous waste of resources and it is morally wrong.

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.

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

Glad you get that.

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.

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.

GE paid no taxes last year.

The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a tax problem.

What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

 

[Neotrotsky]

Comrade Chris is obsessed with rich.
Talking about beating the drum... or just being jealous, rather desperate to be just like them. Seek help man... seriously.


Comrade Christoff
sings the same old song
Sadly, many want ends without understanding the means to get there ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]‪Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Againsheila]

Well, question was addressed to eflatminor, so you asked him first.

I asked you why do you think they deserve more... whatever more is?

I think they deserve just as much, adjusted for inflation.

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think they deserve just as much, adjusted for inflation.

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

Prices went up immediately though.

Most notably bread and milk. My state has the highest or close to the highest in the nation

 

[Patrick2]

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?

As time goes by, the country is more and more overloaded with takers: greedy geezers, welfare types, illegal aliens, greedy government workers - all lined up at the government trough. At the same time, the leftwing treats the producers as enemies: the rich, corporations, etc, from whom all wealth comes. No wonder we've ended up with a $14 trillion debt.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I think they deserve just as much, adjusted for inflation.

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

where do you get that fact from?

 

[Againsheila]

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

where do you get that fact from?

Used to have a link on my other computer to myths about minimum wage. It was there. Can't find it now, If it helps, the last time the mw was raised, that was brought up in the discussion.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

where do you get that fact from?

Used to have a link on my other computer to myths about minimum wage. It was there. Can't find it now, If it helps, the last time the mw was raised, that was brought up in the discussion.

Myth, perhaps

 

[eflatminor]

I think they deserve just as much, adjusted for inflation.

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

As measured by what, the unemployment rate? That's a joke, right? Unemployment does not count those that have given up looking for work, which the less fortunate I'm referring to did long before we last raised the minimum wage. Your comment is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do how a minimum wage devastates the most vulnerable in our society.

Seriously, think with logic and reason. What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage. Answer us that if you can.

One might also point out your arrogance by asking what gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? What special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

 

[Foxfyre]

No need to beat up on Sheila. I disagree with her too on this but she is mostly arguing the concept and not denigrating those who disagree with her.

No 'net loss of jobs' is not a particularly good recommendation for raising the minimum wage though. All that means is that the less qualified workes were even more shut out of the jobs market and everybody else paid more for goods and services due to higher labor costs. And in the long run an artificially high wage becomes counterproductive as inflation eats up all the increased earnings and usually a bit more.

And that would account for her impression that you could once live on minimum wage but cannot do so any more. Any time the government starts meddling with the free market system, sooner or later we all will experience negative unintended consequences.

 

[Wiseacre]

Minimum wage is supposed to be where most of us started at, you're not supposed to be spending your entire working life at the lowest rung of the wage scale. And you shouldn't be trying to raise children at that level either. If you are, then you've made some mistakes or bad decsions that the rest of us are not responsible for. That may sound cold-hearted, but we cannot sustain a society in which mistakes of this sort are subsidized, we should be disincentivizing those decisions instead.

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

 

[ShackledNation]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Ok, lets tax them at 100% and cover a months worth of spending, as well as deduct 105 billion dollars from the private economy that can not be spent or invested to create jobs.

 

[Lakhota]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

Morality? Yes, it is immoral that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class! Wealth is being redistributed UPWARD - not downward.

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties.

Charts/Facts

 

[editec]

Morality of wealth distribution?

All god's children gots to eat.

End of sermon.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately your chart ignores a most important fact: The size of the average household has been decreasing. Families are getting smaller. Fewer people are getting married. The per capita income has been steadily increasing.

Your post is an exercise in demagoguery. It's a big fat lie, in other words.

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

Morality? Yes, it is immoral that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class! Wealth is being redistributed UPWARD - not downward.

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties.

Charts/Facts

 

[Againsheila]

Unfortunately your chart ignores a most important fact: The size of the average household has been decreasing. Families are getting smaller. Fewer people are getting married. The per capita income has been steadily increasing.

Your post is an exercise in demagoguery. It's a big fat lie, in other words.

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

Morality? Yes, it is immoral that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class! Wealth is being redistributed UPWARD - not downward.

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties.

Charts/Facts

I don't understand your point. Household income is household income regardless of the size of the household. If you are insinuating that fewer people in a household are working now, I think that's unlikely since more and more women (wives) have gone to work it seems that more of the lower classes are worker, not fewer. This would make the chart even worse than it looks.

 

[eflatminor]

There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest. Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work? Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

As measured by what, the unemployment rate? That's a joke, right? Unemployment does not count those that have given up looking for work, which the less fortunate I'm referring to did long before we last raised the minimum wage. Your comment is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do how a minimum wage devastates the most vulnerable in our society.

Seriously, think with logic and reason. What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage. Answer us that if you can.

One might also point out your arrogance by asking what gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? What special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

One more time Sheila:

1) What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage?
2) What gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? In other words, what special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

Thrill us with your acumen...

 

[Againsheila]

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

As measured by what, the unemployment rate? That's a joke, right? Unemployment does not count those that have given up looking for work, which the less fortunate I'm referring to did long before we last raised the minimum wage. Your comment is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do how a minimum wage devastates the most vulnerable in our society.

Seriously, think with logic and reason. What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage. Answer us that if you can.

One might also point out your arrogance by asking what gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? What special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

One more time Sheila:

1) What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage?
2) What gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? In other words, what special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

Thrill us with your acumen...

In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for the lowest paid members of our society no to make enough to support themselves. This whole thread is about "morality". Think about it.

In other words, the poor, uneducated and slower members of our society should be making a minimum living wage and everything should go up from there.

We should not be subsidizing employers with foodstamps, help with energy bills, etc. That's what we end up doing when they aren't paid enough to support themselves.

I will allow that for the "special needs" we should subsidize their employment...but that's where I draw the line.

 

[eflatminor]

As measured by what, the unemployment rate? That's a joke, right? Unemployment does not count those that have given up looking for work, which the less fortunate I'm referring to did long before we last raised the minimum wage. Your comment is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do how a minimum wage devastates the most vulnerable in our society.

Seriously, think with logic and reason. What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage. Answer us that if you can.

One might also point out your arrogance by asking what gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? What special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

One more time Sheila:

1) What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage?
2) What gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? In other words, what special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

Thrill us with your acumen...

In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for the lowest paid members of our society no to make enough to support themselves. This whole thread is about "morality". Think about it.

In other words, the poor, uneducated and slower members of our society should be making a minimum living wage and everything should go up from there.

We should not be subsidizing employers with foodstamps, help with energy bills, etc. That's what we end up doing when they aren't paid enough to support themselves.

You completely ignore the reality of your supposition. The result of your so-called moral position is that the most vulnerable end up WITH NO WORK AT ALL. Do you really not get that? You still haven't answered the question - What do we do with those folks?

If we stopped all the subsidization, which we should, that still wouldn't change the fact that there are people whose skill set does not warrant an artificially high minimum wage. Nor would it change the fact that if an employer is forced to pay the minimum wage, it reduces the total number of employees they can hire.

Again, what are you suggesting we do with those that end up with NO work because of your minimum wage? Feel free to work morality into your answer.