Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[OohPooPahDoo]

People that don't work don't get paychecks.

Not much of a guaranteed minimum income, then...

I'd call a check given by government not in exchange for work a benefit check, not a pay check.

A guaranteed minimum income would actually eliminate the need for scores upon scores of separate government programs. If everyone got a check for, say, 10k a year from the government - that would eliminate the need for lots of people to get government backed student loans, food stamps, housing assistance, disability insurance, and numerous grants. (for example, the NEA could be eliminated, as any serious artist should be able to scrape by on 10k + whatever art he sells). We could also throw out a lot of the IRS code. Social Security could be seriously downsized at least. So much beurocracy could be eliminated.

And it hardly removes work incentive. If I make 10k a year not working, I'll make MORE than 10k a year if I work.

 

[xsited1]

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.

...

That's called theft which is immoral.

 

[Wiseacre]

Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aren't you disincentivizing people to work if you give everybody a paycheck whether they've earned it or not? You don't think there would be a lot of anger from the workers against the freeloaders? How does a person develop any self worth if they do not produce or earn anything? Or gain the respect of others?

Which leads me back to my orifinal question inthe OP: is it moral to give people a free ride, or instead try to provide opportunities for the to succeed or fail on their own? Is it moral to subsidize those who won't even try?

That was not the original question in your OP, at least not what I answered. Generally I don't believe it is moral to give an able bodied person a free ride. (unless it's for manifold's avatar, I will give her a free ride anytime:

Yeah, me too.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aren't you disincentivizing people to work if you give everybody a paycheck whether they've earned it or not? You don't think there would be a lot of anger from the workers against the freeloaders? How does a person develop any self worth if they do not produce or earn anything? Or gain the respect of others?

Which leads me back to my orifinal question inthe OP: is it moral to give people a free ride, or instead try to provide opportunities for the to succeed or fail on their own? Is it moral to subsidize those who won't even try?

No it would not disincentivize anyone. The vast majority of people choose to be productive.

"How does a person develop any self worth if they do not produce or earn anything?"

Very good question! One which begs yet other questions in response:

Do all the world's millionaires and multi-millionaires who have not in any way earned their money (which is the vast majority), have any true sense of self-worth?

Should the working people that are so grossly underpaid be satisfied simply by their sense of "self-worth", gained by their productivity? So they perhaps pity all those miilionaires for lack of self-worth?

"is it moral to give people a free ride, or instead try to provide opportunities for the to succeed or fail on their own? Is it moral to subsidize those who won't even try?"

First, if your believe in the equality of mankind and in the principal of ownership, Thomas Paine's concept is that all people own all natural resources equally. So redistributing the welath in order to pay people back for use of their resources is NOT giving them a free ride. It's repecting their ownership.

Second, our economic system does not provide opportunities for everyone, and certainly not equally for anyone. Otherwise we wouldn't have millions of Americans suffering from unemployment. Their was more equality of opportunity in the Soviet Union than there ever has been in America. (I know that that's hard to swallow, but it is the truth, like it or not).

In America, a rich man's son has infinitely more opportunity than a poor man's son. No doubt about it.

Given the economic system, the only true opportunity offered the vast majority of the poor is the opportunity to be a slave. Yes, a well treated slave, but still a slave.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.

I enjoy Paine and find much of his pamphlets intriguing. Paine was not one of the founding fathers, however.

Just your reference to 'socialism' as evidence of an idea being unjustifiable shows that you are indeed brainwashed.

Socialism is an untenable idea. One which fails each time it is employed.

That depends on how you define the term 'socialism'.

On one hand, Stalinism was a failure - recognized as such even in the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, the United States, The United Kingdom, France, Germany and every other industrialized country has been socialist in some sense of the word since long before any of us were born. Would you consider them failures?

What has been a gross failure, since the beginning of time is pure capitalist soceities - free liberaterian.

The gross failure of Yeltsin era Russia being the latest and greatest failure.

The semi-socialistic policies of Putin, which have established Russia as a major economic power is a testament to the success of non-communist, semi-socialism.

Oh, and of course the semi-socialist policies of the United States since FDR have also kinda PROVEN the success of socialism.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

...

That's called theft which is immoral.

So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.

I enjoy Paine and find much of his pamphlets intriguing. Paine was not one of the founding fathers, however.

You are kidding? Right?

You do realize that Thomas Paine was the preeminent political philosopher of the American revolution? That he's called the "Father of the American Revolution"?

I would think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would strongly disagree with you.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Have a good night all! I have to take my son to dinner.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Why is a flat tax moral? Or fair?

Because all are treated equally. You of the left are so very found of the "some are more equal than others" philosophy.

While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why is a flat tax moral? Or fair?

Because all are treated equally. You of the left are so very found of the "some are more equal than others" philosophy.

While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.

I believe in a consumption tax but a straight up flat tax doesn't make any fucking sense.

I like both notions but both would have to be tweaked to be realistic.

For example: you cant charge 20% on manufacturing components...

I've always entertained and in agree with the idea but it needs to be tweaked.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Because all are treated equally. You of the left are so very found of the "some are more equal than others" philosophy.

While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.

I believe in a consumption tax but a straight up flat tax doesn't make any fucking sense.

I like both notions but both would have to be tweaked to be realistic.

For example: you cant charge 20% on manufacturing components...

I've always entertained and in agree with the idea but it needs to be tweaked.

I don't think that a capital investment tax shouldn't be the same rate as income tax for example, or other taxes. But I think that all taxes of the same stature should be the same rate. I don't think it's right to have oil companies pay a lower tax rate than a corporation from a different industry, for the same type of tax. That's what I was trying to get at.

Kind of like in whatever state you're in (or areas of state-depending on your state), everybody pays the same sales tax for the same item.

 

[JackDan]

Because all are treated equally. You of the left are so very found of the "some are more equal than others" philosophy.

While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.

I believe in a consumption tax but a straight up flat tax doesn't make any fucking sense.

I like both notions but both would have to be tweaked to be realistic.

For example: you cant charge 20% on manufacturing components...

I've always entertained and in agree with the idea but it needs to be tweaked.

Just out of curiousity, what is your argument against flat tax?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are kidding? Right?

You do realize that Thomas Paine was the preeminent political philosopher of the American revolution? That he's called the "Father of the American Revolution"?

Be that as it may, Paine was not part of the organizing nor governing mechanism of the early confederation nor of the republic. Paine urged revolt in Common Sense, but did not directly involve himself in the formation of the nation.

I would think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would strongly disagree with you.

I doubt it. Remember that Paine took off to France to promote another Revolution in 1789, and remained there for a decade or two.

Look, I'm not trying to diminish Paine, I enjoy most of what he wrote. But he was a different breed than Washington, et al. Paine was not a builder of nations, but an advocate of revolution. Once the revolt was done, Paine got bored and moved on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're entitled to your opinion, not facts.

Yes... and your -opinion- is that a progressive tax rate is moral.
An opinion, based on a fallacy, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.

Actually I'm basing my opinion on this which, contrary to your opinion, is not a fallacy.

Sigh...

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

This is appeal to popularity. Fallacy.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think.

Please show how a progressive tax is morally right, in a normative sense.

Oh wait - you already said that you're NOT making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, ala the normative sense, but based on what most people think.

So, again, you're left with the fallacy, upon which you have based your opinion, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes... and your -opinion- is that a progressive tax rate is moral.
An opinion, based on a fallacy, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.

Actually I'm basing my opinion on this which, contrary to your opinion, is not a fallacy.

Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets see if you ignore it again.

Would that be moral?

Nice, 'high road' pwnage!

Restating what you said, when what you said clearly illustrates that you argue a fallacy, is, well, self-pwnage.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

...

That's called theft which is immoral.

So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?

Paying someone a lower wage is not theft... nor truly immoral

And if some worker feels underpaid... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere??

Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages

 

[manifold]

Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages

Economically speaking, they are exactly the same.

if some worker feels underpaid... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?

If some person feels overtaxed... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?

 

[mascale]

The 1st Christians are described in KJV Acts 2: As having no concept of not redistributing wealth among all the people.

"42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

The Pacific Northewest indigenous tribes of the United States were also accustomed to a community of wealth in common, the greater status ascribed to actual greater givers.

In Contrast, the Party of Abraham Lincoln is known to take what everyone else hast, and leave it all to rot, or make it go away, or just to die like dogs in vomit. Tens of Millions used to hast the Schedule M, Make Work Pay Tax Credit. Even now, the Republicans took that away, and made it vanish.

What was Schedule M, of U. S. Internal Revenue forms: Actually all about, absolutely no one is incllined to ask, or not? It represented the first ever attempt in history, of a properly computed, Cost-of-Living Adjustment on a national basis. The Moslems and Socialists had created national cost-of-living adjustments, on a national basis, first. Those, however, were computed using a fixed percentage raise. Them what hast more, got more. Them what hast squat, got squat.

The "Calabasis Miracle" of Countrywide Financial had antecedants all wordwide. The Soviet Bloc eventually collapsed. The Shah eventually was overthrown. The Iraqis would eventually go into exile, fleeing the invaders from the USA and the phony "Coalition." Afghanistan would live like squat just like it always had, eventually except for the more prosperous, cash crop growers. There was USA-styled "Liberation" to help out in Afghanistan! The Opiates that the Party of Lincoln, intended for peoples worldwide, were in play.

The original indexation of the Personal Exemptions and Standard Dedection, in the 1986 U. S. federal Income Tax reform, would mainly throw 45% of filers off the federal income tax rolls: Completely. Nothing would be owed.

Kabul would eventually have more than 200 gyms. Governor Schvartzenegger would succumb to Advanced Narcissistic Psychosis, discussing, "What Family(?)" at any given time! Nothing would be allowed to come between the Governor(?) . . .well!

The Governor and the invasions of Americans, including in the Genocide of the White People, 1861-1865, is more about the morality of keeping all the wealth: And about taking wealth away!

Real Christians are clearly not of the Party of Abraham Lincoln! Property-Sharing was not altogether a value of the Confederacy, in fact.

A lot of the Christians, early on, were probably Jewish, in fact(?). At least they lived there, and tried to give it all away, or something--like millions now believe!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(White Eyes Understand Their Christ As Follows, from the 19th Century Potlatch ban: "Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the "Potlatch" or the Indian dance known as the "Tamanawas" is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement; and, any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of same is guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment." Hmmmm!)

 

[DiamondDave]

Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages

Economically speaking, they are exactly the same.

if some worker feels underpaid... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?

If some person feels overtaxed... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?

No.. it is not... not even close to being the same.... and... you do not have the freedom to remain a citizen (not the same as an employee, even before your corny ass says it) when going to another country....

 

[Mr.Nick]

While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.

I believe in a consumption tax but a straight up flat tax doesn't make any fucking sense.

I like both notions but both would have to be tweaked to be realistic.

For example: you cant charge 20% on manufacturing components...

I've always entertained and in agree with the idea but it needs to be tweaked.

I don't think that a capital investment tax shouldn't be the same rate as income tax for example, or other taxes. But I think that all taxes of the same stature should be the same rate. I don't think it's right to have oil companies pay a lower tax rate than a corporation from a different industry, for the same type of tax. That's what I was trying to get at.

Kind of like in whatever state you're in (or areas of state-depending on your state), everybody pays the same sales tax for the same item.

Capital investments wouldn't be taxed..

Actually my biggest concern with a flat tax would be in manufacturing. How can one build a product while paying 20% taxes on components and still have an affordable product??

You're only talking skyrocketing product costs..

Manufacturers would need some sort of "relief."

I like the idea, it just needs some tweaking...