Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Mr. Peepers]

This was my favorite quote. Effing parasites. Sorry, but any industry that can pay their top executives hundreds of millions of dollars, do not deserve or MERIT tax breaks. Period. Also we need to end the billion dollar give-away to Monsanto and Cargill.

"Questioned about whether the tax breaks are essential to promote exploration, each executive admitted they are not but said the subsidies are similar to those enjoyed by other industries."

Overheard on CNN.com: Shrinking Big Oil – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

"Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."
United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

Don't you find it interesting that most of the subsidies given go to only 10% of the recipients. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

 

[uscitizen]

This was my favorite quote. Effing parasites. Sorry, but any industry that can pay their top executives hundreds of millions of dollars, they do not deserve tax breaks. Period. Also we need to end the 87 Billion dollar give-away to Monsanto and Cargill.

"Questioned about whether the tax breaks are essential to promote exploration, each executive admitted they are not but said the subsidies are similar to those enjoyed by other industries."

Overheard on CNN.com: Shrinking Big Oil – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

"Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."

United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

Don't you find it interesting that most of the subsidies given go to only 10% of the recipients. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

I read something a few years ago about how large of a percentage of farm subsidy checks are mailed to NYC. Lots of farmland there?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I read something a few years ago about how large of a percentage of farm subsidy checks are mailed to NYC. Lots of farmland there?

Yep, this is exactly what happens when you allow corporations to buy legislation.

 

[Metzor]

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?

Individuals have morals. Government should never be used to bribe societies dregs. Hunger is the worlds best motivator.

 

[DiamondDave]

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes. That is another massive redistribution of wealth.

~50% of citizens are currently exempt from federal income taxes.... And some even get money BACK from the government when nothing was contributed... That is another massive redistribution of wealth

The people who do not make enough to pay taxes....how much wealth are they accumulating? They are struggling to pay the rent, medical bills, raise children

How much do you think they have stashed away?

Now look at the 2% who control 40% of available wealth. How much do they have stashed away? How much do they shield from taxes?

What a person accumulates is on them.. their choices.. their actions... and in a free society, whether they are successful or not is none of your fucking business... nor does it entitle you or anyone else to the results or earnings of their success

Equal treatment by government... you and your ilk love to spout it when it benefits you, and you subsequently throw it out the window when doing so benefits you... so no matter how much someone makes, to have equal treatment by government, you don't just allow 50% to carry the burden because of your subjective bullshit idea of 'fairness'

Income is taxed... wealth is not nor should it be... if I choose to stash it or invest it or spend it or shove it up a stripper's ass is of no concern to you or your entitlement junkie brethren

 

[Bern80]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

Your brain is truly warped righty. For your brain to write the above and actually believe it takes someone truly delusional. YES, the government does take money from and give it to othes. It's called Social Security you dumb ass just as an example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes. That is another massive redistribution of wealth.

~50% of citizens are currently exempt from federal income taxes.... And some even get money BACK from the government when nothing was contributed... That is another massive redistribution of wealth

That is mostly caused by tax credits/exemptions/deductions related to having children. I already pointed that out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes. That is another massive redistribution of wealth.

Only to people who must self-servingly redefine words in order to make a point.

Exempting certain property owners from paying tax redistributes wealth because it shifts their burden of the tax bill to those who aren't exempt.

Say you have 10 property owners and you need to collect 1,000 in property taxes from them. Assume the properties are equal for the sake of this example.

If all are liable - then each pay $100. If 3 are churches and pay zero, then each church is $100 richer, and because the other 7 have to now pay the 1,000 alone, their shares are 143 instead of 100,

so they are each 43 dollars poorer.

That is a redistribution of wealth, period.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wealth is earned, never to be redistributed by government.
Government redistribution breeds and encourages lazy, undisciplined and uneducated citizens.

 

[DiamondDave]

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes. That is another massive redistribution of wealth.

~50% of citizens are currently exempt from federal income taxes.... And some even get money BACK from the government when nothing was contributed... That is another massive redistribution of wealth

That is mostly caused by tax credits/exemptions/deductions related to having children. I already pointed that out.

And it is wrong... and if those others who simply do not pay still benefit from the system without contribution, or derive entitlements... that too, is a massive redistribution of wealth... all of which is flat out WRONG

 

[M14 Shooter]

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes. That is another massive redistribution of wealth.

Only to people who must self-servingly redefine words in order to make a point.

Exempting certain property owners from paying tax redistributes wealth because it shifts their burden of the tax bill to those who aren't exempt.

Thank you for proving my point.

Redistribution of wealth refers to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.
Tax-exempt status for churches doesn't do this in any way shape or form.

To make your point, you've redefined the term to suit your purposes.

You: fail

 

[Mr. Peepers]

"Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."

United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

You know, I can't believe you righties haven't blown a gasket over this number I posted. Thats BILLIONS of OUR TAX DOLLARS going directly to private corporations who make BILLIONS in profits and pay their top executives hundreds of MILLIONS. The farmers sure as hell aren't benefitting from the subsidies...

 

[manifold]

What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?

My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.

Allow me to expand…

First, subjects like this are great jumping off points for exploratory and open minded discussion of things that at there core, are still merely philosophical opinions. Without exception, whatever anyone posits on this subject, it is an opinion. And that opinion in turn, is based on some other opinion. And so on. At no point in this discussion is it possible to trace the formation of one’s final opinion back to irrefutable fact. This alone usually sends the more astute ‘partisans’ into the shadows. The less astute will boldly challenge the aforementioned truism and disqualify themselves from my further consideration. But whatcha gonna do?

Moving on...

My opinion that ‘some’ amount of wealth redistribution is moral stems directly from my opinion that a peaceful civilization is not possible without it. As simple as that. A society without wealth redistribution is a society without taxes, without common government, without common laws. In short, it’s anarchy. As soon as you impose any taxation, you have crossed the line into wealth redistribution whether you’re honest enough to accept it or not. I know that some will try to argue that if the tax is only imposed to pay for things that do not directly identify the ‘beneficiaries’ (e.g. military, infrastructure and law enforcement), then it doesn’t qualify as wealth redistribution. But of course to make this leap in logic requires one to reason that failure to identify and quantify the distribution of benefits proves that they are shared equally. This is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. Furthermore, in my opinion it is far more likely that the benefits are not shared equally, and I question the worldly wisdom of anyone that claims otherwise.

However, just because a peaceful civilization is no possible without some wealth redistribution doesn’t mean that society should be rigidly constructed for said redistribution (e.g. Communism). It is important to understand the double-edged sword that is wealth redistribution. For all its necessity, it will always wield the potential to destroy economic viability, hamstring innovative progress and in more extreme instances, infringe greatly upon individual liberty. I say ‘potential’ because I believe that a material level of redistribution can be supported before said potential becomes a concern. In short, both too much and too little wealth redistribution, allowed to progress unchecked, will eventually lead to collapse and/or revolt. Logically this implies the existence of some optimal, perhaps non-stationary level of wealth redistribution that balances these constantly evolving, conflicting needs.

For those of you who are willing to accept this foundational thesis, perhaps an equally interesting discussion can be had, not about morality, but where we currently stand in relation to this theoretical optimum. If anyone wants to start a thread about that, I’ll give this some more thought. Until then, back to trolling for me.

manifold out

 

[DiamondDave]

"Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."

United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

You know, I can't believe you righties haven't blown a gasket over this number I posted. Thats BILLIONS of OUR TAX DOLLARS going directly to private corporations who make BILLIONS in profits and pay their top executives hundreds of MILLIONS. The farmers sure as hell aren't benefitting from the subsidies...

You are simply putting a deaf ear BECAUSE it suits your agenda..

many 'conservatives' or 'righties' continually complain about any subsidies or entitlements, no matter the recipient

 

[rightwinger]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

Your brain is truly warped righty. For your brain to write the above and actually believe it takes someone truly delusional. YES, the government does take money from and give it to othes. It's called Social Security you dumb ass just as an example.

Guess what Bern?

You belong to a society. As part of that society you are expected to contribute. You contribute to Social Security, you get to draw out of it. If not, you get nothing

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?

My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.

My opinion that ‘some’ amount of wealth redistribution is moral stems directly from my opinion that a peaceful civilization is not possible without it. As simple as that. A society without wealth redistribution is a society without taxes, without common government, without common laws.

False premise.
Nothing in taxes, common government or common laws necessiates taking from the haves in order to support the have nots.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Below is a map of what states receive more money from the goverment and which ones get less than they pay in. The states in Red are the states who are getting more than they pay in, the states that are Blue get less than they paid in to the government. I see Louisiana is one of the states feeding off the Federal Trough.
I guess Soggy made an error when posting his crying and whining.

 

[JackDan]

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?

no. But it is going to happen anyway.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You are simply putting a deaf ear BECAUSE it suits your agenda..

many 'conservatives' or 'righties' continually complain about any subsidies or entitlements, no matter the recipient

Sure don't see it happening here. All I'm seeing is defense of oil companies' unnecessary (admitted by the executives themselves to being unnecessary) tax breaks and blind defense of the MIC extortion we're paying for. I expected outrage... but you guys scream and moan about helping US Citizens knowing that the largest portion of our citezenry is sliding into poverty since the Great Depression... all because of casino shenanigans played private industry in the first place THAT WE, THE TAX PAYER HAD DUMPED IN OUR LAPS WHILE THEY MADE OUT LIKE BANDITS. I just find it interesting, that's all.

 

[DiamondDave]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

Your brain is truly warped righty. For your brain to write the above and actually believe it takes someone truly delusional. YES, the government does take money from and give it to othes. It's called Social Security you dumb ass just as an example.

Guess what Bern?

You belong to a society. As part of that society you are expected to contribute. You contribute to Social Security, you get to draw out of it. If not, you get nothing

If you gave most of us the choice NOT to contribute to SS... I would gladly sign off on any documentation you wish so that I will never draw from it

If SS is such a great system and option, then why the fuck is it mandatory?? People would be flocking to voluntarily contribute to it

And in part of a free society... you should not be 'expected' to contribute for the personal responsibilities of others... rather you should have the right to exercise the freedom to choose to do so or not