Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[rightwinger]

Yes... it does punish the job creators and the investors with a higher tax burden, while others pay zero income taxes at all... and reward those who suck off the government tit while doing nothing (the welfare queens, and lazy)... for once you have stated something correct

You dumb fucks sure proved what a genius you had for job creation from 2001 to 2009. Left us with a job growth that did not even keep up with the high school and college graduations. Not only that, you left us in one hell of a economic mess. Damned near had the Second Great Republican Depression.

Now you want to tell us how to spend money. Kind of like having a pyromaniac guarding an oil refinery.

The average unemployment rate over the 8 years that Bush was in office was 5.3%. That was with some major disruptions called Katrina and the attack on 911. The average unemployment rate for 2009 and 2010 was 9.3% and is still at 9%. How is that hopee changee shit working for you?

Unemployment was great until Bush looked on like a deer in the headlights while we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Why would anyone hooey change back to that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So by not including the definition I posted regarding cultural morality and why I disagreee in your response, does that means you no long want to continue a conversation and simply declare me to be wrong.

I asked for a sound argument.
Yours is based on a fallacy and thus, cannot be sound.
At this point, your only meaningful recourse is to start over.
Feel free to do so.

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.

 

[Richard-H]

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.

It was his belief that all natural resources are inherently owned equally by everyone, and since all items produced are derived from natural resources, everyone deserves payment for their resources.

It was Thomas Paine's belief that the wealthy should be taxed and that this should be distributed to the poor.

Is that a good enough answer for justification of wealth redistribution or do you hold yourself to be more knowledgeable of the fundamentals of American philosophy than Thomas Paine?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.

I'd love to see the quoted text from Paine.

I don't recall reading that in "Age of Reason."

 

[Richard-H]

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.

I'd love to see the quoted text from Paine.

I don't recall reading that in "Age of Reason."

From Wikipedia:

"He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income."

Research it yourself.

 

[Wiseacre]

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.

It was his belief that all natural resources are inherently owned equally by everyone, and since all items produced are derived from natural resources, everyone deserves payment for their resources.

It was Thomas Paine's belief that the wealthy should be taxed and that this should be distributed to the poor.

Is that a good enough answer for justification of wealth redistribution or do you hold yourself to be more knowledgeable of the fundamentals of American philosophy than Thomas Paine?

That's pretty close to pure socialism, dude. Doesn't justify anything to me.

 

[Richard-H]

Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Prove that it's a fallacy. Why is it a fallacy. I want Proof... not opinion!

See how ridiculous this is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stealing is not moral...

Redistribution of wealth constitutes stealing... I could care less how others philosophize with the process, but logically its theft.

A person without a car could steal one and use the same philosophy those that the proponents of redistribution of wealth use.

"well he needs a car"

So whats the difference between stealing a car or the government stealing money from one and giving it to another to buy a car?

Taxation by constitutionally valid legislation is only stealing if you believe that laws cannot make anything legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is a flat tax moral? Or fair?

A flat tax requires the wealthy to pay more than the less wealthy.

10% on a million dollars is a helluva lot more than 10% on 30,000 dollars.

 

[Richard-H]

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.

It was his belief that all natural resources are inherently owned equally by everyone, and since all items produced are derived from natural resources, everyone deserves payment for their resources.

It was Thomas Paine's belief that the wealthy should be taxed and that this should be distributed to the poor.

Is that a good enough answer for justification of wealth redistribution or do you hold yourself to be more knowledgeable of the fundamentals of American philosophy than Thomas Paine?

That's pretty close to pure socialism, dude. Doesn't justify anything to me.

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.

Have you ever considered that you have been brainwashed into the belief system of European conservatives and all but forgotten American political philosophy?

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

 

[BlindBoo]

I asked for a sound argument.
Yours is based on a fallacy and thus, cannot be sound.
At this point, your only meaningful recourse is to start over.
Feel free to do so.

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.

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?

 

[manifold]

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.

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!

 

[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?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Aren't you disincentivizing people to work if you give everybody a paycheck whether they've earned it or not?

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

 

[Steelplate]

Why is a flat tax moral? Or fair?

A flat tax requires the wealthy to pay more than the less wealthy.

10% on a million dollars is a helluva lot more than 10% on 30,000 dollars.

yes... but when you are looking at life needs. $3,000 means a hell of a lot more to someone making 30K than 100k Does to someone making 1M.

That 3K could pay rent for 6 months for someone or help put food on the table for their kids. that $100k means... well, when you still have $900k coming in every year? Not a whole hell of a lot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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:

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

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