Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Againsheila]

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.

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

 

[kaz]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn

Yes comrade, all money is the people's money. To give someone a tax break is to "subsidize" them. To not take their money is the same as giving someone else's money to someone.

And actually they did earn it, they don't get subsidies, they get tax breaks. Imagine, being able to write off your expenses and not count them as profits...

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

The result of the failed minimum wage policy is that more people are unemployed, and thus welfare is more expensive. Since welfare is paid for by employers and workers, higher welfare means everyone else is forced to be that much less productive, earn that much less in real wages after taxes, or employ that many less people. Coupled with welfare, minimum wage is even more destructive to the poor and working classes.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

Oh my god. You are STILL ignoring the point! Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage. It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about. One last time: How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society. FOCUS!

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

What?

I agree illegals are a problem but the democrats aren't welcoming them for population reasons - they welcome them because they vote democrat because democrats are more than willing to support them.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

Oh my god. You are STILL ignoring the point! Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage. It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about. One last time: How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society. FOCUS!

Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage? Talk about missing the point.

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way. The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration. Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job? It's already gone.

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth. Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment. Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.

 

[eflatminor]

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

Oh my god. You are STILL ignoring the point! Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage. It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about. One last time: How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society. FOCUS!

Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage? Talk about missing the point.

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way. The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration. Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job? It's already gone.

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth. Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment. Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.

You have no ability to focus on the point at hand. None. We already told you that unemployment rates do not take into consideration those that have stopped looking for a job...exactly the most vulnerable people we're talking about. You just are not willing to accept the reality that the minimum wage prevents the neediest Americans from working at all. That speaks VOLUMES about your morality.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the argument and it is beyond ridiculous on its own. You and your sister are not the below minimum wage workers we are talking about...but you really know that unless you're even less intelligent than you appear.

 

[ShackledNation]

Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself? Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal. If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value. But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.

Oh my god. You are STILL ignoring the point! Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage. It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about. One last time: How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society. FOCUS!

Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage? Talk about missing the point.

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way. The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration. Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job? It's already gone.

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth. Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment. Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.

Why is it that you think people who are not working don't deserve a job? What is more moral: people living on low wages, or people living on nothing?

The result of minimum wage is not higher "living" wages. The result is that certain people end up with zero wages.

 

[Sundial]

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?

Social security and Medicare/Medicaid cost a lot of money ~ 40% of all spending. And it's true a lot of those people could work if they wanted to. But that's no reason to cut the programs. Redistributing money from the young to the old is something our country's been doing for 80 years now. People have made plans around social security and Medicare being there for them. At most those programs should be cut, not eliminated.

And I wouldn't call them 'freeloaders'. After all, many of them paid taxes that supported old people when they were young, just as I'm paying taxes to support them today.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

Social security and Medicare/Medicaid cost a lot of money ~ 40% of all spending. And it's true a lot of those people could work if they wanted to. But that's no reason to cut the programs. Redistributing money from the young to the old is something our country's been doing for 80 years now. People have made plans around social security and Medicare being there for them. At most those programs should be cut, not eliminated.

And I wouldn't call them 'freeloaders'. After all, many of them paid taxes that supported old people when they were young, just as I'm paying taxes to support them today.

These programs absolutely must be phased out. Nobody is advocating cutting them immediately, and you are correct that people base their savings around the programs. But the programs hurt the economy, and people would be better off if encouraged to invest and save for their own retirement. As it is now, retirement money is spent by government and taxed later. Investment in the private sector is a much better option. Just because we have been doing it for 80 years does not make it right. I am sure the proponents of slavery made the same argument. The reason to cut these programs is because without them we are all ultimately better off, not to mention even if they were good programs we simply cannot afford them.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Social security and Medicare/Medicaid cost a lot of money ~ 40% of all spending. And it's true a lot of those people could work if they wanted to. But that's no reason to cut the programs. Redistributing money from the young to the old is something our country's been doing for 80 years now. People have made plans around social security and Medicare being there for them. At most those programs should be cut, not eliminated.

And I wouldn't call them 'freeloaders'. After all, many of them paid taxes that supported old people when they were young, just as I'm paying taxes to support them today.

These programs absolutely must be phased out. Nobody is advocating cutting them immediately, and you are correct that people base their savings around the programs. But the programs hurt the economy, and people would be better off if encouraged to invest and save for their own retirement. As it is now, retirement money is spent by government and taxed later. Investment in the private sector is a much better option. Just because we have been doing it for 80 years does not make it right. I am sure the proponents of slavery made the same argument. The reason to cut these programs is because without them we are all ultimately better off, not to mention even if they were good programs we simply cannot afford them.

I agree. We cannot simply eliminate those programs, but if we the people wanted to, we could wrest these programs out of the control of the thieves in Washington. We definitely do not want to eliminate the retirement savings incentives, but even a blind-folded monkey could get a better return on investments than the government is providing.

Oh wait, it is not supposed to be an investment. It is an "insurance policy". Screw that, I would rather find my own policy.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

To repeat:

"No net loss of jobs" means many more are unemployed than there were before. The population is steadily increasing and if the number of jobs isn't also increasing, it is obvious there are more people not working. If increase in the minimum wage results in no 'net loss of jobs', that is a really sad recommendation for it.

When there is full employment, the economy is humming, labor is in higher demand, and employers cannot only afford to hire more people, but they can afford to pay them better and will in order to get them to work.

Again labor is a commodity and a cost of doing business like everything else. I have my labor to sell and will usually sell it to the highest bidder. When many people are looking for work, my labor will not be worth as much and I will not command as high a price for it because other people will be willing to work for less to get the job. And there will likely be fewer jobs because the economy won't be as robust and need as many workers to support it.

For this reason, each time the minimum wage has been raised, the median family incomes have flattened out more and are not rising as quickly. The minimum wage isn't the only reason for this, but it is one of them. If you let the free market work, wages generally improve dramatically for those who make their labor worth the price.

And I don't DESERVE a job or a certain wage or certain benefits just because I have labor to sell. I DESERVE a wage or benefits or promotion because I worked as agreed for somebody willing and able to pay me and made my labor worth it to that employer. My labor is worth only as much as it will benefit the employer who hired me.

 

[Againsheila]

Oh my god. You are STILL ignoring the point! Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage. It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about. One last time: How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society. FOCUS!

Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage? Talk about missing the point.

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way. The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration. Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job? It's already gone.

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth. Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment. Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.

You have no ability to focus on the point at hand. None. We already told you that unemployment rates do not take into consideration those that have stopped looking for a job...exactly the most vulnerable people we're talking about. You just are not willing to accept the reality that the minimum wage prevents the neediest Americans from working at all. That speaks VOLUMES about your morality.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the argument and it is beyond ridiculous on its own. You and your sister are not the below minimum wage workers we are talking about...but you really know that unless you're even less intelligent than you appear.

My job, that went to India, I was making just a little over minimum wage. If you are paying less than minimum wage, you are breaking the law.

 

[HenryBHough]

When everybody claims the welfare benefits to which all are entitled who will be left to run the money presses? Oh, wait, Obama can offshore that, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to have a President and Congress who understand why those jobs are going to India or China or the Phillipines or Mexico or wherever. I would like for us to have a business climate again in which business owners would dare to risk their cash reserves to start hiring and expanding again; where those with trillions in venture capital stashed overseas would dare bring it home again.

When we make it more attractive to do business in the USA than elsewhere, the jobs will come back. Until then, raising the minimum wage, raising business taxes, and increasing regulation will only drive more and more jobs overseas.

 

[bripat9643]

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

I prefer non-fiction.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I'm not surprised that you don't get it. That's why you're a liberal.

If household income has to be shared among fewer people, then those people are relatively wealthier.

I grew up in a family with 7 children. Nowadays, families with more than 2 children are rare. According to you, if both families bring in 100K per year, they are both equally well off. You have to be a moron to believe that.

Also, a lot more families consist of single mothers or just plain single people. According to your lame understanding of economics, a single person making 100K is no better off than a family of 4 bringing in 100K.

I could go on, but that should suffice to show the flaw in your chart.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one's stopping you from writing them a check, sheila. What does "there's no excuse" mean? Does that mean it's impossible? No, certainly not. Does that mean I'm obligated to support these losers? No, certainly not. How does someone's failure to support himself become an obligation on me?

What does it mean, Sheila?

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.

Meaningless twaddle.

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.

than put an end to food stamps. I certainly wouldn't cry about that. However, the program doesn't "subsidize" employers. That claim is based on the premise that employers would have to pay them more if it wasn't for the food stamp program. That fact is not in evidence.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

No one's stopping you from writing them a check, sheila. What does "there's no excuse" mean? Does that mean it's impossible? No, certainly not. Does that mean I'm obligated to support these losers? No, certainly not. How does someone's failure to support himself become an obligation on me?

What does it mean, Sheila?

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.

Meaningless twaddle.

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.

than put an end to food stamps. I certainly wouldn't cry about that. However, the program doesn't "subsidize" employers. That claim is based on the premise that employers would have to pay them more if it wasn't for the food stamp program. That fact is not in evidence.

Once a week, I give out lunches to those who need it at the church. I currently have a young homeless man living in my house, he's the 3rd in as many years. I have given what I can.

You really believe that a working person is going to be able to continue to work for an employer if he can't feed himself? If he can't keep warm? Face it, if there weren't such systems, the employers would have to pay more.

The main reason we keep foodstamps and such programs running is to prevent a revolution such as the french revolution. The hungrier you are the more likely you are to fight. I agree...stop all welfare. Let's see what happens. My guess is, the rich won't like it much.