Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

That is the typical conservative justification for oil subsidies, but you are as wrong as are the liberals who accuse the oil companies of receiving obscene benefits at the taxpayer' expense. The dirty little secret is that the largest outlays from the oil subsidies are simply another form of welfare to the poor and a whole bunch of the rest goes to development of green energies so beloved by recent administrations.

. . . .The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies . . . .
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

 

[thereisnospoon]

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

That is the typical conservative justification for oil subsidies, but you are as wrong as are the liberals who accuse the oil companies of receiving obscene benefits at the taxpayer' expense. The dirty little secret is that the largest outlays from the oil subsidies are simply another form of welfare to the poor and a whole bunch of the rest goes to development of green energies so beloved by recent administrations.

. . . .The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies . . . .
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

Oh no..According to liberals, notorious B I G oil is just showered with yearly gifts from the federal government.
If these subsidies were as the libs surmise, the Obama admin would have eliminated them long ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.

That is the typical conservative justification for oil subsidies, but you are as wrong as are the liberals who accuse the oil companies of receiving obscene benefits at the taxpayer' expense. The dirty little secret is that the largest outlays from the oil subsidies are simply another form of welfare to the poor and a whole bunch of the rest goes to development of green energies so beloved by recent administrations.

. . . .The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies . . . .
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

So we eliminate everything labeled an oil subsidy. No more strategic petroleum reserve that would avert disaster in time of war or when critical oil supplies are disrupted. Everybody okay with that?

And we eliminate most of the assistance to the poor in heating their homes. Think the liberals will be good with that?

And we cut off the grants and breaks to green energy R & D. Most conservatives would say okay. Most liberals would scream bloody murder.

And for the rest of it we might or might not have as much oil exploration and production--that would depend on how production friendly the government is to the oil companies in other ways. And yes, some of the petroleum products we use and depend on might cost a bit more, but probably no more that would the reduction be in our taxes if the government was honest enough not to tax us for what it gives to all those other programs.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Fallacy of Redistribution

By Thomas Sowell
September 20, 2012

---
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

---

The Fallacy of Redistribution | RealClearPolitics

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can support Capitalism and not love money. You simply support the freedom to acquire wealth, and do with it as you see fit.

{"Or did you say it's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. } - Ayn Rand

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Most people know about supply and demand, and the left points to a "world market" to explain the extreme prices of gasoline. But 40% increase in domestic production due to the easing of restrictions under Bush make this a bit questionable.

Another common saying in economics is "what the market will bear." Gasoline prices are more set by what the market will bear than by supply and demand. Prices go up until driving habits change and reduce profits, then they come down. Oil constantly tests the boundaries of how far the market will stretch.

Cutting subsidies to oil companies will have very little effect on the price at the pump, as it won't alter what the market will bear.

 

[regent]

All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth. In many 101 economic textbooks redistribution of wealth is listed as one of the basic functions of government.

 

[Katzndogz]

The middle class isn't being fleeced to give money to the rich. The middle class is being robbed to support a growing entitlement class of poor. The taxes the middle class pay isn't going to support rich people but for endless public benefits for the poor. In addition, more and more taxes are needed to support the public employee unions who get to retire at 50 with no loss in income for their lifetimes. It wasn't rich people bankrupting cities like Stockton and San Bernardino, it was the police and firefighter unions.

Crisis has put scrutiny on unholy alliance of politicians, unions - Sun Sentinel

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Most people know about supply and demand, and the left points to a "world market" to explain the extreme prices of gasoline. But 40% increase in domestic production due to the easing of restrictions under Bush make this a bit questionable.

Another common saying in economics is "what the market will bear." Gasoline prices are more set by what the market will bear than by supply and demand. Prices go up until driving habits change and reduce profits, then they come down. Oil constantly tests the boundaries of how far the market will stretch.

Cutting subsidies to oil companies will have very little effect on the price at the pump, as it won't alter what the market will bear.

Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor. As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve. Does anybody want us to do away with that? Another billion and a half goes into fuel subsidies for low income families. Does any liberal want us to discontinue that program. The final billion and a half is largely focused on developing green technoligies and industries. Courtesy of the federal government, a refinery in Borger TX recently completed a large addition that allows it to make fuel from beef fat rather than petroleum. Okay, a lot of conservatives would say we don't need to fund that. But would many liberals agree?

Do you know why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline these days? And this drives up costs for all of us because all the big trucks and trains run on diesel? It has become twice as expensive because the government requires all the sulphur be removed from it before it is sold, and that is an intensely expensive process. So which do you want? Cheap diesel or no sulfur?

Gasoline prices would be much lower if all the federal and state taxes were removed from them, and if the refineries could tool to make one blend of gasoline instead of the dozens of different blends required by different areas and states as well as the federal government. Just removing the ethanol requirements would save us a lot per gallon. It is extremely expensive for the refineries to close down to reformulate a batch of gasoline.

 

[Truthseeker420]

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?

Like Romney?

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney is yesterday's news. He ran a campaign promising to improve the economy and provide jobs. He just never understood that the public isn't interested in jobs. obama promised more free stuff and that's what they wanted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but I see nothing in Romney's history to suggest that he forcibly took money from anybody in order to give it to somebody else. Which is what wealth redistribution is.

 

[regent]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

 

[Katzndogz]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

During the Great Depression people would work for whatever they could get. You want dinner, chop wood for two hours. Sweep floors. During the Great Depression there was no such thing as food banks, pantries, welfare or any safety net at all. Americans were so willing to work that thousands of them migrated to the fields to pick fruit and vegetables. During the Great Depression, you worked or you died.

Since the Depression we made poverty comfortable.

If we replaced the social safety net with the same kind of benefits that were available during the Depression, we might again produce a great generation. What we're doing now is producing the next generation more like Greeks than Americans.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor. As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve. Does anybody want us to do away with that?

No, but the strategic oil reserve isn't a subsidy, it's a safety net.

Another billion and a half goes into fuel subsidies for low income families. Does any liberal want us to discontinue that program.

Again, this isn't a subsidy to oil, this is a subsidy to the poor. That can be argued on it's own merit, but it is not money paid to big oil, it is the purchase of oil at market price which then is given to "the poor" at reduced prices.

The final billion and a half is largely focused on developing green technoligies and industries. Courtesy of the federal government, a refinery in Borger TX recently completed a large addition that allows it to make fuel from beef fat rather than petroleum. Okay, a lot of conservatives would say we don't need to fund that. But would many liberals agree?

Again, I'm not sure any of this ends up in the pockets of the oil companies. Chevron very publicly claims that they kick in funds in addition to the federal government to support these Green boondoggles. Sounds like well connected looters end up with these funds.

Do you know why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline these days? And this drives up costs for all of us because all the big trucks and trains run on diesel? It has become twice as expensive because the government requires all the sulphur be removed from it before it is sold, and that is an intensely expensive process. So which do you want? Cheap diesel or no sulfur?

Cheap diesel. Sulfur is heavy and falls back to the ground. Low sulfur diesel generates more carbon monoxide - a real pollutant, than standard diesel does.

Gasoline prices would be much lower if all the federal and state taxes were removed from them, and if the refineries could tool to make one blend of gasoline instead of the dozens of different blends required by different areas and states as well as the federal government. Just removing the ethanol requirements would save us a lot per gallon. It is extremely expensive for the refineries to close down to reformulate a batch of gasoline.

Yep, all very true.

 

[Againsheila]

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.

Most people know about supply and demand, and the left points to a "world market" to explain the extreme prices of gasoline. But 40% increase in domestic production due to the easing of restrictions under Bush make this a bit questionable.

Another common saying in economics is "what the market will bear." Gasoline prices are more set by what the market will bear than by supply and demand. Prices go up until driving habits change and reduce profits, then they come down. Oil constantly tests the boundaries of how far the market will stretch.

Cutting subsidies to oil companies will have very little effect on the price at the pump, as it won't alter what the market will bear.

So why subsidize them?

 

[Againsheila]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled? Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?

 

[Foxfyre]

Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor. As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve. Does anybody want us to do away with that?

No, but the strategic oil reserve isn't a subsidy, it's a safety net.

Another billion and a half goes into fuel subsidies for low income families. Does any liberal want us to discontinue that program.

Again, this isn't a subsidy to oil, this is a subsidy to the poor. That can be argued on it's own merit, but it is not money paid to big oil, it is the purchase of oil at market price which then is given to "the poor" at reduced prices.



Again, I'm not sure any of this ends up in the pockets of the oil companies. Chevron very publicly claims that they kick in funds in addition to the federal government to support these Green boondoggles. Sounds like well connected looters end up with these funds.

Do you know why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline these days? And this drives up costs for all of us because all the big trucks and trains run on diesel? It has become twice as expensive because the government requires all the sulphur be removed from it before it is sold, and that is an intensely expensive process. So which do you want? Cheap diesel or no sulfur?

Cheap diesel. Sulfur is heavy and falls back to the ground. Low sulfur diesel generates more carbon monoxide - a real pollutant, than standard diesel does.

Gasoline prices would be much lower if all the federal and state taxes were removed from them, and if the refineries could tool to make one blend of gasoline instead of the dozens of different blends required by different areas and states as well as the federal government. Just removing the ethanol requirements would save us a lot per gallon. It is extremely expensive for the refineries to close down to reformulate a batch of gasoline.

Yep, all very true.

Just a quick comment before I have to dash to a meeting. As you've noted, a whole bunch of things rated as 'oil subsidies' are not that at all. The oil companies are profiting from the green energy stuff and will do it as long as the government pays them to do it. Some are making out like bandits, but it is the government's choice that they do.

Interesting comment on sulfur though. I need to research that.

 

[regent]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

During the Great Depression people would work for whatever they could get. You want dinner, chop wood for two hours. Sweep floors. During the Great Depression there was no such thing as food banks, pantries, welfare or any safety net at all. Americans were so willing to work that thousands of them migrated to the fields to pick fruit and vegetables. During the Great Depression, you worked or you died.

Since the Depression we made poverty comfortable.

If we replaced the social safety net with the same kind of benefits that were available during the Depression, we might again produce a great generation. What we're doing now is producing the next generation more like Greeks than Americans.

During the Great Depression there were government jobs for those that could work, there was welfare that those could not. If those things had not been put into place by FDR other types of governments were being talked about.

 

[Katzndogz]

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them. Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?

Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled? Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?

Those hospitals are now illegal and have been illegal since 1980.