CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Can it ever be immoral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

Doesn't matter. Taxing the wealthiest doesn't work. They'll simply move their investments elsewhere.

 

[dblack]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

A portion of the distribution is voluntary the rest is coerced.

uh... yep.

 

[regent]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

 

[dblack]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

It depends on what you mean by 'regulation'. Laws that preserve property rights and transparent transactions are a basic requirement. Laws that standardize behavior in the name of political agendas detract from the value of a free market, perverting it to serve the interests of those doing the regulating.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

I would argue it would work forever, without regulation. Regulation is what causes Capitalism to fail. Every example in the past decade, is exactly that. Regulation causing the system to fail.

 

[danielpalos]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

 

[danielpalos]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

And yet there are hundreds of thousands of corporations, and only a small tiny fraction of them have ever been bailed out.

I disagree with your claim.

Regulation is a bailout.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

I would argue it would work forever, without regulation. Regulation is what causes Capitalism to fail. Every example in the past decade, is exactly that. Regulation causing the system to fail.

Socialism in China has built entire cities; why are wealthy capitalists not flocking to new cities simply for the "splendor" of it?

 

[Andylusion]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

That's a complete misunderstanding of the power. General Welfare, means that Congress is supposed to only be allowed to make policies that provide for general welfare, not arbitrary welfare of a select group... like old people. Social Security violates the General Welfare clause. Welfare, food stamps, public housing, any program that provides a benefit to a few, at the expense of the rest, is a violation of the General Welfare clause that requires that beneficial policies benefit everyone.

 

[dblack]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

 

[Andylusion]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

I would argue it would work forever, without regulation. Regulation is what causes Capitalism to fail. Every example in the past decade, is exactly that. Regulation causing the system to fail.

Socialism in China has built entire cities; why are wealthy capitalists not flocking to new cities simply for the "splendor" of it?

The question makes no sense.

 

[Donald Polish]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Since God, or as Camus calls it, benign indifference of the universe distributes wealth so unevenly or as many would agree, unfairly, why are conservatives and Christian conservatives in particular so opposed to the redistribution of wealth in a small degree to ameliorate this uneven or unfair reality?

 

[Andylusion]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Since God, or as Camus calls it, benign indifference of the universe distributes wealth so unevenly or as many would agree, unfairly, why are conservatives and Christian conservatives in particular so opposed to the redistribution of wealth in a small degree to ameliorate this uneven or unfair reality?

First, and most obvious..... Thou shalt not steal. You don't have a right to other people's money. You shouldn't take it from them. You can make a law, to say that stealing is right... but it's still not right in G-d's eyes.

Second, the claim that G-d has benign indifference of the universe, is a false.

Proverbs 13:22 A good person leaves an inheritance for their children's children, but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous.

Good people leave an inheritance..... for their children's children. Not for the state to be 'redistributed'.

Sinner's wealth, is stored up for the righteous. Indicating that G-d will give to the righteous, what the evil have gained.

Matthew 25, has the parable of the talents. You can read it yourself if you like.
Matthew 25 - The Parable of the Ten Virgins - At - Bible Gateway
Starts at verse 14.

The basic plot is that 3 guys were given money to conduct business with, and two of them do, and earn money. The third does not, and earns nothing. When the Lord returns, the two who earned more money, will be given even more. The third who did not, will lose what he had, and have nothing.

So clearly G-d is not benign and indifferent.

No Christian who actually reads the Bible, could ever come to such a conclusion.

Beyond that, you are completely wrong. Helping the poor is a normal aspect of Christian belief. And honestly, we do more for the poor, than the average non-Christian does.

But we believe in something called "Charity". The left, pushes something called "theft". Charity is when someone make a choice of the will, to help someone else voluntarily. The left support coerced confiscation of money from out of our pockets. We support what is good. They support what is evil.

 

[danielpalos]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

 

[regent]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

 

[ralfy]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Does it require a profit? No. You need a profit in order to survive. True. But Capitalism, in and of itself, does not require profits, nor concentration of wealth, nor redistribution of wealth.

All that is required to have capitalism, is for you to own your own stuff. That's it.

Before this country even had a currency of exchange, we had capitalism. People owned their own labor, and a plot of ground. They owned the trade of wheat and eggs, for other things.

If you wanted to get some eggs, you had to kill wild game, or find other things, to trade the farmer for his products.

And there was no wealth redistribution, unless you count attacking the farmer and stealing his stuff.

As far as wealth concentration, that has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with freedom. I could cash out all my stocks, sell off all my stuff, and go blow it all on women, parties and gambling, and consume all of it. I would be broke. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it's a freedom of choices.

Equally, if you save and invest your entire life, you'll end up a millionaire really easy. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it is a freedom of choice to save and invest.

And while its a nice thought that business needs consumers, that's not entirely true. Business can thrive under any system, with or without consumers. Exxon would be just fine without us. They can sell oil international, and they can sell to governments. There were Chinese companies operating for decades before the capitalist reforms of 1978. 63% of the entire population of China lived below the poverty line of $2 a day. Those companies still grew, and still succeeded even while the population lived in object poverty.

You only gave part of the definition. Capitalism requires private property and profit. That's because the source of capital is profit. Look up "capital accumulation."

 

[ralfy]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Socialism doesn't bail out capitalism. Rather, with capitalism, those in financial power take over and control the government. That's why Washington bailed out Wall Street.

 

[ralfy]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalism. How long would capitalism last without regulation?

Capitalism actually requires regulation. That's because as it becomes increasingly complex it begins to rely on laws and fiat currency, among others. In fact, the idea of private property itself is based on regulation, i.e., physical control of land legitimized.

 

[rdean]

Redistribution of wealth has already happened. That's what the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to do. Redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1% and it worked. Republicans are so proud. Which is why it's very strange to hear some of them talk about income inequality. Their plan worked and now some are complaining? Didn't see that coming.

 

[danielpalos]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.