Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.

Even socialism/communism the political elites and their friends still hoard all the resources from the masses and the masses have no chance to ever acquire wealth themselves.

In our economic system, someone can grow up in the ghetto and become rich from their talents in the classroom or sports venues.

Idiots like you whining about rich people passing on their wealth to their "family" is ludicrous. Why shouldn't we come take your family's resources under the same premise.....nobody owns anything, oops that is your socialism.

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries


The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries



The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.

The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | TIME.com

Having lived in Europe for 16 years I can attest to the fact that you are wrong about European upward mobility. Europe has more social programs which "elevate the living conditions of all the citizens" but only in the context of high taxes to level out the entire society of the welfare states. Again, as someone else pointed out, you are surfing propaganda sites and have the audacity to believe their crap.

Got it, that scientific stuff with data and all doesn't matter in right wing world, you 'feel' there is more upward mobility in the US than elsewhere, damn those statisticians!

 

[Dad2three]

All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

Weird, 1945-1980 the top 1% ONLY had 6%-9% of ALL US income. By 2007 they TOOK 23%. Were those guys pre Reaganomics lazy? Under ecucated? Made bad choices?

Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.



The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[boedicca]

All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

What this also shows is the effect of the government moving off the gold standard, printing money, and spurring inflation. Increased money supply seeks assets; so those who have assets are going to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Want more equality? Get rid of government interference in the economy, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of Too Big Too Fail.

 

[Dad2three]

All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

What this also shows is the effect of the government moving off the gold standard, printing money, and spurring inflation. Increased money supply seeks assets; so those who have assets are going to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Want more equality? Get rid of government interference in the economy, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of Too Big Too Fail.

lol, 7 YEARS LATER? Grow a brain, get honest, ONCE?

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...

 

[Dad2three]

Over twice as much as my father did.

How much does (did) your father earn?Less than half of what I make. I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies: Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No!

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching. Unholy horseshit

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.

The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”

You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.[/QUOTE]

LBJ (JFK) used DEMAND SIDE NOT trickle down. Get honest

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...

if they did where in Constitution did they tell us that?? Isn't thinking fun?

 

[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.

We sure do here in Louisiana... the Feds rape us for billions and then give it to fuckwad blue states so they can make their transfer payments.

In your imagunation. Louisiana takes more than it gives.

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And [MENTION=21991]bripat[/MENTION], Florida is even worse. Leech.

Have you any idea why some states get more in tax money than others? I lived in Louisiana, and observed the welfare habituation the Federal government forced on the state. In 1950 the state received very little federal aid except for US Hwy construction and repair, yet the state gave the elderly an "old age pension," was the first state from way back to have free text books for the schools and the first to have free school lunches for anyone who wished to eat them WITHOUT INCOME TESTING. The federal government is seriously to blame for the welfare problems in Louisiana and in many other states as well, and all because of the "tyranny of the majority" which forced it on those states.

 

[Dad2three]

Over twice as much as my father did.

How much does (did) your father earn?Less than half of what I make. I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies: Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No!

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching. Unholy horseshit

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.

The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”

You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.[/QUOTE]

So you DON'T address the zero sum nature of wealth (Corp) instead you blather on about nonsense./ Got it

 

[dnsmith35]

come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.

Fyi...most europeans don't own a car or a home.

Riding public transportation and living in an apartment is the average european's life.

for a guy with a degree, you sure act funny to scientific data

really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol


how'd that work out for dubya?

you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

jfk 1964!

 

[Dad2three]

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...

if they did where in Constitution did they tell us that?? Isn't thinking fun?

MANY things aren't in there. Is 'free markets or capitalism'?


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny


American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.

Fyi...most europeans don't own a car or a home.

Riding public transportation and living in an apartment is the average european's life.

really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol


how'd that work out for dubya?

you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

jfk 1964!

Show me Bubba? NONE in the past 50 years have right?

 

[boedicca]

All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

What this also shows is the effect of the government moving off the gold standard, printing money, and spurring inflation. Increased money supply seeks assets; so those who have assets are going to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Want more equality? Get rid of government interference in the economy, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of Too Big Too Fail.

lol, 7 YEARS LATER? Grow a brain, get honest, ONCE?

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...

I call shenanigans.

Please provide valid evidence that the Founders wanted the government to interfere in the economy (pick winners and losers).

And as for growing a brain for once, you should follow your own advice.

 

[rdean]

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?

I think if they don't support the country where they were able to make that money, they should go to another country where their greed is more welcome.

The Bush tax cuts were the greatest redistribution of wealth in history. From the middle class to the top 1%.

254 counties where food stamp usage doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney, a pioneer of outsourcing. I wonder how many of those who lost their jobs, lost them when Mitt's company moved the jobs to China? Lucky that Mitt owed nothing to the people who helped him get $250,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00 for each of his five sons. By the way, Mitt strongly supported the Iraq war. All five of his sons were in their 20's when the war started and not one, not a single one enlisted. He said they were already doing something important. Helping him get elected president.

And the Republican base supports that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton,

actually Hamilton was a Federalist. When Jefferson heard about his thinking he organized the Republican party to defeat them. They were never heard from again until the liberals began to spy for Stalin's big liberal govt i nthe 1930's.

 

[Dad2three]

Come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.

FYI...most Europeans don't own a car or a home.

Riding public transportation and living in an apartment is the average European's life.

Really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? lol

How'd that work out for Dubya?

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

Don't you mean how did it work out for Bawney Fwank and Christopher "Countrywide" Dodd?

Barney? Minority member of the GOP House 1995- Jan 2007? PLEASE tell me the super powers he had?



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."



June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

 

[Dad2three]

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton,

actually Hamilton was a Federalist. When Jefferson heard about his thinking he organized the Republican party to defeat them. They were never heard from again until the liberals began to spy for Stalin's big liberal govt i nthe 1930's.

You mean the guys who gave US the US Constitution? Or the guy (TJ) who without Congress doubled the US size?

 

[rdean]

come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.

Fyi...most europeans don't own a car or a home.

Riding public transportation and living in an apartment is the average european's life.

really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol


how'd that work out for dubya?

you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

jfk 1964!

And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

actually right wingers don't claim Bush because he was not a right winger. Why not grow up?
You do little more than lie when you say Bush was a right winger.

 

[Dad2three]

What this also shows is the effect of the government moving off the gold standard, printing money, and spurring inflation. Increased money supply seeks assets; so those who have assets are going to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Want more equality? Get rid of government interference in the economy, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of Too Big Too Fail.

lol, 7 YEARS LATER? Grow a brain, get honest, ONCE?

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...

I call shenanigans.

Please provide valid evidence that the Founders wanted the government to interfere in the economy (pick winners and losers).

And as for growing a brain for once, you should follow your own advice.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics



When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny



American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."


WHICH SIDE ENDED UP BEING CORRECT? LOL

In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.