Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[American_Jihad]

Obamacare’s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth

January 6, 2014 by John Perazzo

For all the attention Obamacare has drawn in recent weeks, few observers have noted that the law is having the unexpected, yet most welcome, effect of transforming scores of millions of Americans, virtually overnight, into generous benefactors of the less fortunate. A real-world example—representative of countless millions of similar situations—will make this crystal clear:

Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per year—the income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare—the Democratic Party’s gift to a grateful America.

Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance—thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.

...

This, in a nutshell, is the exquisite beauty of Obamacare: It is redistribution … er, um, er … It is neighborliness on a scale never before seen in this country. And many millions of Americans are poised to reap its glorious benefits! As a form of shorthand, you can simply refer to these fortunate millions as “Democrats,” in honor of the party of benefactors that is, at this very moment, purchasing their eternal political allegiance with your dollars. Take pride in the fact that this wonderful arrangement is but one aspect of the “fundamental transformation” of America that our president is so faithfully pursuing, true to his word. At its essence, it is an arrangement designed to take from certain individuals according to their ability to pay, while giving to other individuals according to their need—a profoundly neat and elegant formula if ever there was one. It almost makes you wonder if anyone else has ever thought of anything like it before.[1]

NOTE:

[1] A central principle of Marxism, popularized by Karl Marx himself, is this: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Obamacare?s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth | FrontPage Magazine

The Scenario unfolding in our time was predicted and plotted years ago - It's known among the Liberal-Progressive Sociofacists as the Cloward- Pliven Strategy

The Cloward–Piven strategy was outlined in 1966 by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system devoid of a work ethic, "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". The strategy was outlined in a May 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".


In their article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling class only used welfare to enslave the poor, that by providing a social safety net, the rich were able to hold a bay what they viewed as the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Poor people [The Proletariat] can only advance when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward stated in 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

Cloward and Pliven pointed out that the number of Americans subsisting on social services probably represented less than half the number who were actually eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand what they viewed as entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, theoretically would be "a profound financial and political crisis" - basically an initiating domino that would eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA and leave Humanity ripe for the ensuing onslaught of Marxism or other illogical derivatives of it.

Rudolph Giuliani, while serving as NY City Mayor attempted to expose Cloward-Pliven in the late 1990s. As part of his drive for welfare reform he accused the militant scholars by name and cited their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.

---> A Liberal America- What would America look like if Liberals had their way
National Socialism, Platform Planks of
Democratic Socialists of America
Obama's Communist Czars - Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd - CommieBlaster
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

 

[Political Junky]

Mexico has the very rich and the very poor. We're headed in that direction.
The richest man in the world is Mexican.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

My experience has been that almost everyone likes to think they are productive members of society, even if that is questionable. If they don't think that they are, most would like the opportunity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My experience has been that almost everyone likes to think they are productive members of society, even if that is questionable. If they don't think that they are, most would like the opportunity.

Ask yourself;

Do you own a business?

Do you have a job in the private sector?

If either of these are a "yes," you are a productive member of society.

Now ask;

Are you on welfare?

Do you work for the government (Welfare premium edition?)

If either of these are a "yes," you are a leech and a drag on society.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes comrade, government allowing companies to deduct their expenses is giving them money. All money is the people' money. When government doesn't take money away from corporations, that is the same as government taking one person's money by force and giving it to someone else.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you people so much? What you say is not just consistent with Marxism or could be construed as Marxism, it's just directly from the manifesto and the lips of every Marxist since.

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

Yes comrade, government allowing companies to deduct their expenses is giving them money. All money is the people' money. When government doesn't take money away from corporations, that is the same as government taking one person's money by force and giving it to someone else.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you people so much? What you say is not just consistent with Marxism or could be construed as Marxism, it's just directly from the manifesto and the lips of every Marxist since.

The fact of the matter is, oil companies consistently make a lower return on investment than most other businesses. Gasoline prices adjusted for inflation has stayed relatively flat over the last 60 years (I didn't go back further because I got tired of the same old same old.

One other thing; when we find alternative fuels to fossil fuels the people had better hope the oil companies of today have a finger in the pie because they are in the habit of investing heavily for future needs. They are not the monsters some less than thoughtful people try to make out they are.

This coming from a liberal who has studied economics enough to understand investment and profits!

 

[bripat9643]

Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Cuba had one export product; sugar. And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets. Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob. The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished. So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation. If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.

Wealth is a relative term. The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy. Our embargo has a lot to do with that.

Duh . . . Wrong! The average Cuban is far worse off today then he was under Batista. In those days Cuba was the wealthiest country in Latin America. It had a booming tourist industry and it exported sugar and cigars. Most of the cars you see on Cuban streets were purchased during the Batista regime.

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of peons and patrones and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of. More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

The vast majority of Cubans would be overjoyed return to being "siphoned" by the U.S. Their standard of living would increase 10 fold.

Your spouting commie propaganda. It bares no resemblance to an actual fact.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed. The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on protective government.

Sure it can. It took hold in Cuba and it almost took over in Chile. Both of these countries were prosperous before the communists subverted their governments.

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat. But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of terrorism, kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.

It sad that there are any Americans stupid enough to believe that communism hasn't been an utter disaster wherever it has been tried.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.

 

[bripat9643]

More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Mexico has the very rich and the very poor. We're headed in that direction.
The richest man in the world is Mexican.

There's a few Africa nations that follow the conservative economic system.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

That's exactly what the rich did to the middle class. No doubt they purposely caused the financial meltdown of 2007 and looted the US tax payers. They rigged the tax system so it is not fair. They shifted the tax burden more onto us the middle class.

I find it funny you cry about fairness when it was them who rigged the system and ripped you off. It is as if you don't believe class warfare exists. Do you?

Oh, and stop asking what is fair and start asking WHAT WORKS? If taxing the rich at 5% doesn't work, try 6%. Don't fucking cry that 6% isn't fair. It was more before Bush got into office. So "what's fair" and "what works" is probably what they were paying before Bush gave them tax breaks they didn't deserve and they didn't work.

 

[dnsmith35]

More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.

No, that is not what we are fighting for. I have not seen a single person on any thread who wants the African paradigm.

But at the same time, we don't want ambition, motivation, and incentive destroyed by socialist policies which do not create prosperity.

Income inequality is not in and off itself terrible, and the top 1% DOES NOT TAKE THEIR WEALTH from the less wealthy. Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune

 

[dnsmith35]

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?

That's exactly what the rich did to the middle class. No doubt they purposely caused the financial meltdown of 2007 and looted the US tax payers. They rigged the tax system so it is not fair. They shifted the tax burden more onto us the middle class.

I find it funny you cry about fairness when it was them who rigged the system and ripped you off. It is as if you don't believe class warfare exists. Do you?

Oh, and stop asking what is fair and start asking WHAT WORKS? If taxing the rich at 5% doesn't work, try 6%. Don't fucking cry that 6% isn't fair. It was more before Bush got into office. So "what's fair" and "what works" is probably what they were paying before Bush gave them tax breaks they didn't deserve and they didn't work.

The ideal thing is to tax people in a progressive system to collect sufficient revenue to operate government and help those WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES.

Having said that, it is idiocy for anyone to claim that the rich did anything to reduce the wealth of the middle class or the less wealthy. That is absolute hog wash. Look at the link in my post above. While it may be true that our working class has increased productivity, it is not because of working harder, but rather because technology by which they can work helped that increased productivity to occur. One must also realize that the disparity of income is more because the bottom half of our income spectrum has not increased their skills sufficient to keep up. (Also in the link from the post above.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft. Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[regent]

Every nation has a method for redistributing the wealth, and how that wealth is redistributed helps determine what type of nation one has. For example, to have a democracy depends on large part on having a middle class, and having a middle class can depend on large part on how the nation's wealth is distributed.

 

[dnsmith35]

Every nation has a method for redistributing the wealth, and how that wealth is redistributed helps determine what type of nation one has. For example, to have a democracy depends on large part on having a middle class, and having a middle class can depend on large part on how the nation's wealth is distributed.

There ARE many ways to redistribute money. Sweden taxes their people very highly. But their redistribution is spread around regardless of income status. It is a chosen welfare state, not a socialist state as only 5% of its production is government owned or closely controlled.

In my opinion, as a nation founded on the principles of self reliance, redistribution should only be aimed at those who cannot help themselves. A great deal of income disparity is based on choices, and I don't believe we owe those who made bad choices early in life, to include education, location, motivation, ambition and incentive. Read the following article based on studies:

Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune

 

[ScienceRocks]

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?

This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft. Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the super rich are doing with taking all the resources out of the economy is THEFT!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft. Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the super rich are doing with taking all the resources out of the economy is THEFT!

And how, precisely, are they doing that?

 

[dnsmith35]

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?

This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft. Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the super rich are doing with taking all the resources out of the economy is THEFT!

Horse puckey! When I see people whining and crying over what the rich make, I know they do not understand economics and the various engines which drive the economy.The wealth of our economy is not finite. Individual wealth can be increased without regard to the super rich. That is proved by the fact that the turn over in the top 1% is 98% every decade. The 1% DOES NOT DISTRACT from the income potential of the less wealthy. Don't blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Other than those who are incapable of working, anyone making the right choices about education, has the right motivation, incentive and ambition can improve his wealth in spite to the 1%

 

[Care4all]

This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft. Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the super rich are doing with taking all the resources out of the economy is THEFT!

Horse puckey! When I see people whining and crying over what the rich make, I know they do not understand economics and the various engines which drive the economy.The wealth of our economy is not finite. Individual wealth can be increased without regard to the super rich. That is proved by the fact that the turn over in the top 1% is 98% every decade. The 1% DOES NOT DISTRACT from the income potential of the less wealthy. Don't blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Other than those who are incapable of working, anyone making the right choices about education, has the right motivation, incentive and ambition can improve his wealth in spite to the 1%

He said "with taking all of the resources out of the economy is theft"....

I'm not certain what he means by resources...but I didn't take it as him crying a river about what rich people "make" as you seemed to automatically assume?