danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #101
Special pleading to make a point you don't have? No one is claiming we need to equalize income, just solve for simple poverty.He only means that, all things being equal. Otherwise, we have a general welfare clause that requires income redistribution to promote it. The same can be said of the common defense.I believe the right needs to get a clue and a Cause; the Only time the right has any problem with "income redistribution" is when other peoples money is not used to bailout the wealthiest.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury
Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute
Only a moron would believe in the Marxist mantra, 'income redistribution.'
Raise your paw.
Only the right is that cognitively dissonant; providing for the General welfare requires income redistribution as does providing for the specific welfare, as in the example of private laws in the US.
Let's see if you are educable:
What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?
ââŚ.by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others wonât. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.
Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that canât be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, weâre gonna get what weâre gonna get anyway, so letâs just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.
Some of that will be âunfair,â because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) âhavesâ and âhave-notsâ will appear.
I know what youâre thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.
Iâll come back to that.
After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But theyâll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.
So: letâs take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, letâs redistribute every year. Every April 23 â Michael Mooreâs birthday â all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as itâs possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.
Not really, but weâll come back to that, too.
Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.
And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And theyâllkeepit.
How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic âequalityâ did not âcannot â make everyone âequal.â It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.
Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.
Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improvingpoliticalskills.Thatâswhat makes a difference.
You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a âhaveâ in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.
Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracyâs help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.
In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. Thatâs the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.â
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News
So much for 'income redistribution.'