Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

It's the game monopoly spread out over the US, a few winners and MANY, MANY losers!

In reality everyone wins. Even if they don't become wealthy, they earn far more than average people could earn during pre-capitalist times. They also have a vast wealth of new technologies and products that previous people had never even conceived of. The have medical science that prolongs their lives and reduces their suffering. Obesity is the biggest problem among the poor.

That's all the result of the profit motive.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org

the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure.

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things?
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

Weird how 90%+ of current debt

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird

Those are irrefutable facts.

 

[Dad2three]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

Under socialism, everyone starves.

Yes, the US proves that out with our socialist roads, military, education, regulatory infrastructure, fed reserve, etc...

 

[Dad2three]

the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure.

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things?
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

Weird how 90%+ of current debt

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird

Those are irrefutable facts.

Nope, OPINIONS distorted....

 

[boedicca]

Nope, OPINIONS distorted....

Your Self-Awareness is surprisingly refreshing.

 

[Dad2three]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

It's the game monopoly spread out over the US, a few winners and MANY, MANY losers!

In reality everyone wins. Even if they don't become wealthy, they earn far more than average people could earn during pre-capitalist times. They also have a vast wealth of new technologies and products that previous people had never even conceived of. The have medical science that prolongs their lives and reduces their suffering. Obesity is the biggest problem among the poor.

That's all the result of the profit motive.

Who argues the US does away with capitalism, we just want o go back to the way it was BEFORE conservatives manipulated for the benefits of the few

 

[bripat9643]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

Under socialism, everyone starves.

Yes, the US proves that out with our socialist roads, military, education, regulatory infrastructure, fed reserve, etc...

We still have some capitalism to pay for the socialist black holes.

 

[Dad2three]

Nope, OPINIONS distorted....

Your Self-Awareness is surprisingly refreshing.

Got it, AGAIN you can't refute ANY of my posts so you try ad homs....

 

[Dad2three]

Under socialism, everyone starves.

Yes, the US proves that out with our socialist roads, military, education, regulatory infrastructure, fed reserve, etc...

We still have some capitalism to pay for the socialist black holes.

True, Walmaret and McD's is sucking a lot off of US

 

[dnsmith35]

I find myself in a very uncomfortable position as a liberal, noting that I have had to debunk more left wing extremists than conservatives. RWers are bad for the country's economy, but of late I have to admit that the LWers are more extremist and are even worse for our country's economy.

We in the US are fortunate to have a Capitalist economic system, which has created tremendous prosperity for the most people with out resorting to being a total welfare state like some European countries. But if there is value in a welfare state we can use Sweden as an example. They are a capitalist economic country with the government owning or controlling only 5% of production and distribution, but because they CHOOSE to have a welfare state they tax highly but the fruits of that taxation are given to ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one small segment of the population.

We on the other hand are approaching being a welfare state redistributing wealth to our less wealthy instead of spreading it out among everyone. This has not always been true. As an example, some of our states: free public schools provided free school lunches, transportation, books and supplies to everyone, not just the poor. Everyone over 65 got an old age pension. If we are to have a welfare state, this is how it should be. Income testing to receive tax benefits is immoral.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

On those where rates don;'t matter? Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?


DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom, so yes, the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Weird how the ONLY tax increase the GOP was for, was one hitting the bottom 90% the hardest!

On those where rates don;'t matter?

Which are those?

Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?

Some rates are lower than recently. Like capital gains.
Some are higher, like the top income tax brackets.
Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom

Does raising taxes on business cause job loss? Cause business creation to shrink? Cause demand by the newly unemployed to shrink?

the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Bush's tax cuts saved the middle class more than the payroll tax holiday.

 

[bripat9643]

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird

Those are irrefutable facts.

Nope, OPINIONS distorted....

What is opinion about the statement that $16 billion is less than 0.5% of last year's spending?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, the US proves that out with our socialist roads, military, education, regulatory infrastructure, fed reserve, etc...

We still have some capitalism to pay for the socialist black holes.

True, Walmaret and McD's is sucking a lot off of US

Nope. They provide jobs and inexpensive consumer goods. Walmart enables millions of people to live better than they could otherwise. On the other hand, our socialist education system makes our population stupid, and does it at great cost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, history shows it's true!

RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS REMEMBER?

History shows no such thing. Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.

Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?

HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?

Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org

the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure.

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things?
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

Weird how 90%+ of current debt

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird

Pointing out the silliness of your claims makes you sad. Weird.

 

[Freewill]

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?

First of all, why do you say morally?

 

[dnsmith35]

Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.

Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?

BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL

How about the subprime auto Biz and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol

FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

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

Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.

It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.

I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of low interest, low or no down payments continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation.

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.​

Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com

In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.

Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the “Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom.” Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise.

Rahan said, "“
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."

I’d reverse the order of emphasis — credit expansion first, housing policy second — but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.​

In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

First of all, why do you say morally?

issues of morality naturally come up when you steal from someone at the point of a gun!

 

[dnsmith35]

History shows no such thing. Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.

Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?

HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?

Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.

He has been informed and shown by links, that the only reason the US economy boomed during the 90% top marginal tax rate was a combination of things:

War time mobility
Rapid improvement of Industrialization
Massive investment in infrastructure instead of just giving the poor more money.

Now lets look at Obama's solution here to fore: Give the same amount, $500 billion, to the same people who already receive $500 billion annually in safety net programs. Had he spent that same amount of money on infrastructure he would have put more people to work and ended the great recession much faster, just like Eisenhower did during his administration. Maybe now he will do what he should have done 6 years ago.

He is not smart enough to understand and continues to parrot left wing extremist propaganda (because that is what his puppeteers tell him to do)

 

[bripat9643]

It's the game monopoly spread out over the US, a few winners and MANY, MANY losers!

In reality everyone wins. Even if they don't become wealthy, they earn far more than average people could earn during pre-capitalist times. They also have a vast wealth of new technologies and products that previous people had never even conceived of. The have medical science that prolongs their lives and reduces their suffering. Obesity is the biggest problem among the poor.

That's all the result of the profit motive.

Who argues the US does away with capitalism, we just want o go back to the way it was BEFORE conservatives manipulated for the benefits of the few

Your belief that everyone benefits from your scheme to loot the earnings of anyone you're envious of is hilarious.