Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Foxfyre]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits. Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

It's interesting that someone brought up the coalescence of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Do you realize that the Founding Fathers didn't want that? *gasp* How can he say that??? He doesn't know that! They were all wealthy landowners!

Ahh...funny you should bring up property. The Founding Fathers wrote into the law of property two brilliant things. First of all there's a little legal principle called The Rule of Perpetuity. Basically the FF didn't want old families amassing more and more wealth and control over land, so they created property laws that, while still allowing property to be alienable (an ownership term, btw), stopped just such a coalescence of wealth. The second thing they did was set up a system where if you die without a will...your property goes to THE STATE! (yes it's the individual state and not the federal gov't...but that's splitting hairs).

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

Raising taxes will only provide more money to spend. That is not what will fix our current economic crisis which is a spending and debt problem rather than a revenue problem. Not since FDR proved you can obtain unquestioning adoration and votes from the people by giving them what they do not merit and have not earned has the government been fiscally responsible. And since that time it has spent every single penny it has received and used increased revenues as justification for borrowing more. Not a penny has been used to pay down the debt.

It didn't happen overnight, but gradually the ability to favor one group over another so increased the power, prestige, authority, influence, and personal advantage of those in government, that has largely became the purpose of government. Our fearless leaders and government bureaucrats no longer care if they actually do good. They only wish to allocate huge sums of money for things with noble sounding titles because they thereby enrich themselves.

We've now reach the tipping point that the government has run out of our money. The debt now approximates the entire GDP. If we don't stop the insanity, we lose the America that the Founders gave us.

 

[Immanuel]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits. Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

It's interesting that someone brought up the coalescence of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Do you realize that the Founding Fathers didn't want that? *gasp* How can he say that??? He doesn't know that! They were all wealthy landowners!

Ahh...funny you should bring up property. The Founding Fathers wrote into the law of property two brilliant things. First of all there's a little legal principle called The Rule of Perpetuity. Basically the FF didn't want old families amassing more and more wealth and control over land, so they created property laws that, while still allowing property to be alienable (an ownership term, btw), stopped just such a coalescence of wealth. The second thing they did was set up a system where if you die without a will...your property goes to THE STATE! (yes it's the individual state and not the federal gov't...but that's splitting hairs).

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

Raising taxes will only provide more money to spend. That is not what will fix our current economic crisis which is a spending and debt problem rather than a revenue problem. Not since FDR proved you can obtain unquestioning adoration and votes from the people by giving them what they do not merit and have not earned has the government been fiscally responsible. And since that time it has spent every single penny it has received and used increased revenues as justification for borrowing more. Not a penny has been used to pay down the debt.

It didn't happen overnight, but gradually the ability to favor one group over another so increased the power, prestige, authority, influence, and personal advantage of those in government, that has largely became the purpose of government. Our fearless leaders and government bureaucrats no longer care if they actually do good. They only wish to allocate huge sums of money for things with noble sounding titles because they thereby enrich themselves.

We've now reach the tipping point that the government has run out of our money. The debt now approximates the entire GDP. If we don't stop the insanity, we lose the America that the Founders gave us.

I agree. The problem lies in that we over spend. We can raise taxes ten fold tomorrow but by the day after Congress will increase spending by twenty fold. Therein lies the problem.

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

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?

Carry it to its logical conclusion. If you deem that need trumps ownership then essentially you have abolished the right of ownership of private property. Once (and its already happened here by the way) a society determines that a class, group or establishment (usually in the form of government) has the authority to declare that a need on one individual's part dictates a debt on the part of another member then all that body needs to do is declare that anything is a need and it becomes subject to confiscation.

Simply, if the government determines that every person needs a million dollar home then it has already been empowerd (via starry decisis) to confiscate millions of dollers to satisfy the debt of society.

This is evident in the debate in texas about the prisoners without AC. 20 years ago nobody would have declared the right of prisoners (who have forfieted certain rights based on behavior) to have A/C... now it seems that we can confiscate (or tax) the property of free, law abiding citizens in order to provide for the "right to comfort" of prisoners.

No, it is not moral.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

Texanmike--welcome to USMB by the way--hit the one critical point that should be the deciding factor in this whole debate.

If government can require one citizen to give of his property or labor for the targeted benefit of another, you can throw the whole concept of unalienable rights out the window.

Unalienable rights are what made the United States separate from, different from, unique from, and better than any other nation that has ever existed. No other nation had even acknowledged, much less put unalienable rights at the core of all that the nation shall be.

If you can legally take what I ethically and legally earned or acquired and give it for the benefit of another, I have no rights.

 

[Texanmike]

Texanmike--welcome to USMB by the way--hit the one critical point that should be the deciding factor in this whole debate.

If government can require one citizen to give of his property or labor for the targeted benefit of another, you can throw the whole concept of unalienable rights out the window.

Unalienable rights are what made the United States separate from, different from, unique from, and better than any other nation that has ever existed. No other nation had even acknowledged, much less put unalienable rights at the core of all that the nation shall be.

If you can legally take what I ethically and legally earned or acquired and give it for the benefit of another, I have no rights.

Thanks for the welcome.

The problem with a lot of people's opinions is that they do not carry their theories to the logical conclusion.

Mike

 

[Vanquish]

The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.

I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?

Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?

No! Decrease the spending AND bring in more money. That's why the crazy analogy of "even if you confiscated the wealth of the top 20% of the wealthy it still wouldnt pay off the national debt" is so retarded. Of course it wouldn't. But if you collect money over time....through taxes....then the debt goes down and is more easily equalized on a year by year basis.

 

[Foxfyre]

The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.

I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?

Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?

No! Decrease the spending AND bring in more money. That's why the crazy analogy of "even if you confiscated the wealth of the top 20% of the wealthy it still wouldnt pay off the national debt" is so retarded. Of course it wouldn't. But if you collect money over time....through taxes....then the debt goes down and is more easily equalized on a year by year basis.

It hasn't gone down in more than 70 years despite tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. The more in taxes the government collects, the faster the debt clock runs.

How many decades does it take to convince you that government does not and will not have the discipline to address the debt until we cut off their money supply?

 

[Texanmike]

The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.

I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?

Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?

No! Decrease the spending AND bring in more money. That's why the crazy analogy of "even if you confiscated the wealth of the top 20% of the wealthy it still wouldnt pay off the national debt" is so retarded. Of course it wouldn't. But if you collect money over time....through taxes....then the debt goes down and is more easily equalized on a year by year basis.

Aren't you assuming that higher taxes wouldn't hurt the economy? Who do you propose to tax? What is your ideal tax rate?

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie

Part of the problem is the system. We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money. If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.


Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie

Part of the problem is the system. We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money. If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.


Mike

All we have to do to get a handle on it is to remove the power of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, entity, and/or organization without equally benefitting all regardless of poliical ideology or socioeconomic circumstances. That would eliminate most of the corruption in government, would shrink the government to a manageable size, would not compromise national security or any of the necessary functions of government, and would also eliminate many of the negative consequences to the people as a result of 'free' government money.

In order to not break faith with those we have made dependent on 'free' government money, just at it has slowly accrued and crept up on us, we would need to slowly and carefully start now to reverse the entitlement programs and return them to the states where they should have been all along. But we would no longer be increasing or expanding those programs but bit by bit cut them back untl they are gone at the federal level.

 

[Immanuel]

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie

Part of the problem is the system. We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money. If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.


Mike

Part of the problem? Hehe, I would have to say that is a pretty big part.

Welcome to USMB.

Immie

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Voodoo Reaganomics has been redistributing wealth for 30 years- the wealthy have tripled their wealth while everyone else has suffered. The top 400 FAMILIES have more than the bottom 60%. The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%. Pub Dupes!! Destroy medicare, save the rich! How DUMB and misled can you get can you get? Our physical and mental infrastucture is fallong apart too...a total catastrophe.

 

[Immanuel]

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie

Part of the problem is the system. We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money. If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.


Mike

All we have to do to get a handle on it is to remove the power of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, entity, and/or organization without equally benefitting all regardless of poliical ideology or socioeconomic circumstances. That would eliminate most of the corruption in government, would shrink the government to a manageable size, would not compromise national security or any of the necessary functions of government, and would also eliminate many of the negative consequences to the people as a result of 'free' government money.

In order to not break faith with those we have made dependent on 'free' government money, just at it has slowly accrued and crept up on us, we would need to slowly and carefully start now to reverse the entitlement programs and return them to the states where they should have been all along. But we would no longer be increasing or expanding those programs but bit by bit cut them back untl they are gone at the federal level.

Foxfyre,

I love you (in a purely platonic way) but you are living in an utopian dreamworld if you actually believe that can happen.

The new code for Congress is... "Congress shall make no laws that remove power from Congress in any way, shape or form whether it be tax related or in any other form. Any such laws that appear on the floor of Congress shall be shot down immediately and the representative(s) responsible will be severely reprimanded and if necessary censured until reformed."

Immie

 

[Lovebears65]

I have no problem giving to the poor but I want to do it on my terms not the governments. The libs think they are giving to the poor by just paying taxes when the conservatives are doing other ways as well! I help a family here in town that has two small children. I buy them food , gas clothes and anything else they need. They do not go to the government because they are to proud but I cant see children go without so I buy for them!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Voodoo Reaganomics has been redistributing wealth for 30 years- the wealthy have tripled their wealth while everyone else has suffered. The top 400 FAMILIES have more than the bottom 60%. The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%. Pub Dupes!! Destroy medicare, save the rich! How DUMB and misled can you get can you get? Our physical and mental infrastucture is fallong apart too...a total catastrophe.

The top tax rates have been cut and the "rich" pay an ever larger portion of all taxes collected.
How does allowing people to keep more become redistribution?

 

[Foxfyre]

Part of the problem is the system. We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money. If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.


Mike

All we have to do to get a handle on it is to remove the power of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, entity, and/or organization without equally benefitting all regardless of poliical ideology or socioeconomic circumstances. That would eliminate most of the corruption in government, would shrink the government to a manageable size, would not compromise national security or any of the necessary functions of government, and would also eliminate many of the negative consequences to the people as a result of 'free' government money.

In order to not break faith with those we have made dependent on 'free' government money, just at it has slowly accrued and crept up on us, we would need to slowly and carefully start now to reverse the entitlement programs and return them to the states where they should have been all along. But we would no longer be increasing or expanding those programs but bit by bit cut them back untl they are gone at the federal level.

Foxfyre,

I love you (in a purely platonic way) but you are living in an utopian dreamworld if you actually believe that can happen.

The new code for Congress is... "Congress shall make no laws that remove power from Congress in any way, shape or form whether it be tax related or in any other form. Any such laws that appear on the floor of Congress shall be shot down immediately and the representative(s) responsible will be severely reprimanded and if necessary censured until reformed."

Immie

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

 

[ShackledNation]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a net loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will ever cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits. Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

 

[Immanuel]

All we have to do to get a handle on it is to remove the power of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, entity, and/or organization without equally benefitting all regardless of poliical ideology or socioeconomic circumstances. That would eliminate most of the corruption in government, would shrink the government to a manageable size, would not compromise national security or any of the necessary functions of government, and would also eliminate many of the negative consequences to the people as a result of 'free' government money.

In order to not break faith with those we have made dependent on 'free' government money, just at it has slowly accrued and crept up on us, we would need to slowly and carefully start now to reverse the entitlement programs and return them to the states where they should have been all along. But we would no longer be increasing or expanding those programs but bit by bit cut them back untl they are gone at the federal level.

Foxfyre,

I love you (in a purely platonic way) but you are living in an utopian dreamworld if you actually believe that can happen.

The new code for Congress is... "Congress shall make no laws that remove power from Congress in any way, shape or form whether it be tax related or in any other form. Any such laws that appear on the floor of Congress shall be shot down immediately and the representative(s) responsible will be severely reprimanded and if necessary censured until reformed."

Immie

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

Couple of big if's in there.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.