Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

It always cracks me up when self-professed libertarians advocate import tariffs, seemingly oblivious to the glaring, hypocritical contradiction that lies therein.

But whatcha gonna do?

If they advocate import tariffs, they aren't libertarians. It would be the same as claiming to be a Christian if you discounted the premise that Christ was the son of God.

 

[manifold]

It always cracks me up when self-professed libertarians advocate import tariffs, seemingly oblivious to the glaring, hypocritical contradiction that lies therein.

But whatcha gonna do?

If they advocate import tariffs, they aren't libertarians. It would be the same as claiming to be a Christian if you discounted the premise that Christ was the son of God.

Tell that to editec. He labors under the belief that anybody can call themselves whatever they want and believe whatever they want regardless of any gaping academic contradictions between the two.

 

[mascale]

Shown in the previous mascale post, the early Christians were basically best at wealth redistribution. The early real Christians would to what Jesus taught. They would take their hast, sell it, and spread it around so that everyone had enough.

Mostly, of course, they were Jews: And Civilization woud eventually come to express its opinion about a Christ like that. In Europe, even now: There really are none. The concept seems to have widespread support, even in the Middle East, even now.

Jesus had further presented two arithmetic examples of down-home economics. In Matthew 20::1-16, the manner of the pay at the end of the day is basically re-distributive, like in the Schedule M, which the Party of Abraham Lincoln, characteristically took away. It was Christian, and certainly no person of the Party of Abraham Lincoln can accept either Christian behavior, (what is shown in Acts 2), or Jesus teachings, shown in Matthew 20::1-16.

Matthew 20::1-16, puts arithmetic to work on behalf of all the believers in the field. Those relatively well-off--working only the one hour--were equally treated like those who had clearly been desperate, and needed to be included right away.

The Party of Abraham Lincoln is generally opposed to equal treatment, basically opining that only the slaves in the South should be free, and even in 1863. When freed they should only even labor for a reasonable wage--if allowed.

And so Jesus also tells the story in Matthew 25::14-30. If the raise methodology is arithmetic-bound, engaging even everyone in a currency program, arithmetic-based, then a fixed percentage raise provides more to the rich. The poor might as well go and toss it in the dirt. They eventually get cast into the outer darkness of foreclosure.

There is on the one hand, the equal-treatment arithmetic of Matthew 20, creating the behavior of early Jew believers. Europe would eventually deal with that in all certainty. The Party of Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand: Completely disregards any semblance of pretense at equal treatment.

It is thought at Party of Abraham Lincoln, that no paying customers in any of the stores will make the economy thrive.

Even in the current U. S. House of Representatives: The TeaBerserkers intend $2.0 tril. in spending cuts--with nothing offered to replace those cuts.

In the tradition of the Party of Abraham Lincoln: The current House Republicans, only want to take all the spending away.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws come to Lands of Many Nations--Hoping to become like Jews of Europe, of the last century--vanished for the most part, even now!)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shown in the previous mascale post, the early Christians were basically best at wealth redistribution. The early real Christians would to what Jesus taught. They would take their hast, sell it, and spread it around so that everyone had enough.

Mostly, of course, they were Jews: And Civilization woud eventually come to express its opinion about a Christ like that. In Europe, even now: There really are none. The concept seems to have widespread support, even in the Middle East, even now.

Jesus had further presented two arithmetic examples of down-home economics. In Matthew 20::1-16, the manner of the pay at the end of the day is basically re-distributive, like in the Schedule M, which the Party of Abraham Lincoln, characteristically took away. It was Christian, and certainly no person of the Party of Abraham Lincoln can accept either Christian behavior, (what is shown in Acts 2), or Jesus teachings, shown in Matthew 20::1-16.

Matthew 20::1-16, puts arithmetic to work on behalf of all the believers in the field. Those relatively well-off--working only the one hour--were equally treated like those who had clearly been desperate, and needed to be included right away.

The Party of Abraham Lincoln is generally opposed to equal treatment, basically opining that only the slaves in the South should be free, and even in 1863. When freed they should only even labor for a reasonable wage--if allowed.

And so Jesus also tells the story in Matthew 25::14-30. If the raise methodology is arithmetic-bound, engaging even everyone in a currency program, arithmetic-based, then a fixed percentage raise provides more to the rich. The poor might as well go and toss it in the dirt. They eventually get cast into the outer darkness of foreclosure.

There is on the one hand, the equal-treatment arithmetic of Matthew 20, creating the behavior of early Jew believers. Europe would eventually deal with that in all certainty. The Party of Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand: Completely disregards any semblance of pretense at equal treatment.

It is thought at Party of Abraham Lincoln, that no paying customers in any of the stores will make the economy thrive.

Even in the current U. S. House of Representatives: The TeaBerserkers intend $2.0 tril. in spending cuts--with nothing offered to replace those cuts.

In the tradition of the Party of Abraham Lincoln: The current House Republicans, only want to take all the spending away.

So... we should continue/expand the welfare state because Jesus would have us do so?

 

[editec]

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. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

I'm down with that.

What's your take on paying people LESS than than the value of what they produce and giving it to people who don't produce anything, but who merely OWN the means of production?

Let me guess, you're down with that, right?

'So it's agreed then?

the Capitalist model of society work pretty damned well.

I'm glad we could reach this happy conclusion.

 

[Wiseacre]

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. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

I'm down with that.

What's your take on paying people LESS than than the value of what they produce and giving it to people who don't produce anything, but who merely OWN the means of production?

Let me guess, you're down with that, right?

'So it's agreed then?

the Capitalist model of society work pretty damned well.

I'm glad we could reach this happy conclusion.

First, capitalism is by far the greatest economic system devised by man, an is entirely responsible for the steep rise in the standard of living for every society that has tried it without too much gov't intervention. No other system even comes close.

Now as far as workers' wages goes, it comes down to supply and demand. If there are 100 people waiting to take your job, it's kinda hard to ask for a raise. It is therefore on you to do something to increase your value. I have no moral dilemna with that, and if you don't upgrade so to speak, then you should get used to life on the bottom of the financial pile.

Which leads us to the owners. Dude, without the incentive to create wealth it all goes down the tubes. I do think that gov't has a role to play in ensuring a safe workplace and no unfair business practices or discrimination or abuses are not permitted. If an owner of an enterprise can develop some product or service that others will pay handsomely for, well that's called progress. There is no moral issue with getting rich, it is not a sin.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hell man you can eat a full meal at the best restaurant in Japan for 5 bucks in many nations money (converted to us)..

50 American dollars is a fortune to some...

Are you kidding me? Japan?

No dude, food is about 10 to 15 times more expensive in Japan. EVERYTHING is expensive in Japan. (At least Tokyo)

Japan is not China.

I was speaking more about the rural areas of Japan.

Of course any major city will be expensive anywhere you go.

 

[manifold]

Hell man you can eat a full meal at the best restaurant in Japan for 5 bucks in many nations money (converted to us)..

50 American dollars is a fortune to some...

Are you kidding me? Japan?

No dude, food is about 10 to 15 times more expensive in Japan. EVERYTHING is expensive in Japan. (At least Tokyo)

Japan is not China.

I was speaking more about the rural areas of Japan.

Of course any major city will be expensive anywhere you go.

Backpedal fail.

 

[mascale]

When Lincoln famously freed the slaves, (1) he freed the slaves in the South, and (2) he did not guarantee any alternative to providing, for their well-being.

With the current crop of Lincoln-Berserkers, even on TV--and the internet and twitter--Clamoring to free the shopkeepers of any paying customers in their stores: Then anyone sane is better inclined to propose a John Wilkes Booth Memorial!

After the Genocide of White People, 1861-1865--then even Europe would be able to find a convincing role model for a version of "Equal Treatment Under Law," like the computing in Matt. 25::14-30. The one group of Europeans were to be treated as a Master Race, and the other groups of Europeans were to go to the dust as cremains.

With no paying customers, in the stores: Then the proprietor groups, and any of their labor, have only the welfare recourse. No one will expand the credit market. Then central government, has nothing to spend. Incomes no longer in-come(?).

That is welfare, without a state.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, not Stirred!"
(Many squaws come to Lands of Many Nations: Find new peace and love, with one-armed bandits!)

 

[Mr.Nick]

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. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

I'm down with that.

What's your take on paying people LESS than than the value of what they produce and giving it to people who don't produce anything, but who merely OWN the means of production?

Let me guess, you're down with that, right?

'So it's agreed then?

the Capitalist model of society work pretty damned well.

I'm glad we could reach this happy conclusion.

First, capitalism is by far the greatest economic system devised by man, an is entirely responsible for the steep rise in the standard of living for every society that has tried it without too much gov't intervention. No other system even comes close.

Now as far as workers' wages goes, it comes down to supply and demand. If there are 100 people waiting to take your job, it's kinda hard to ask for a raise. It is therefore on you to do something to increase your value. I have no moral dilemna with that, and if you don't upgrade so to speak, then you should get used to life on the bottom of the financial pile.

Which leads us to the owners. Dude, without the incentive to create wealth it all goes down the tubes. I do think that gov't has a role to play in ensuring a safe workplace and no unfair business practices or discrimination or abuses are not permitted. If an owner of an enterprise can develop some product or service that others will pay handsomely for, well that's called progress. There is no moral issue with getting rich, it is not a sin.

You have a problem with our standard of living or something??


Besides, like communism, or any dictated economy is any better?? hell when they have economic problems they just start murdering people and purging them - that or they just invade other countries for resources(see Stalin).

 

[MikeK]

The problem is not redistribution via charitable programs such as food stamps. These are good things which show us to be socially advanced and highly civilized. The problem is poorly managed bureaucracies which can be fixed by the Congress -- but the Congress remains inert because the voting public remains ignorant and apathetic. So when we hear about things such as the loophole which enables a lottery winner to continue receiving food stamps, where does the blame ultimately lie?

Regardless of how well organized and managed a given program may be there always will be the familiar "ten percent," those who no matter what is done to minimize waste and fraud will manage to abuse the system. These are low-level sociopaths, the bottom-feeders who inhabit any society and are impossible to eliminate by any civilized means.

So as long as the freeloaders remain an occasional rather than common presence we shouldn't allow them to harden us against all who have legitimate need for the aid programs American society makes available to its less fortunate.

 

[smokin_kat]

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. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

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?

Please read anything from Thomas Jefferson. If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, incentivize it. The government is incentivizing. Not working.

 

[Steelplate]

Wow... you guys are going at it.

Let me ask a few simple questions.... who benefits MOST from our country is it the welfare bum making...what?.... $600 or so/month from Welfare? Or is it the conglomerate, who buys legislation that makes them billions upon billions of dollars every year... of which, millions go to their CEO's and Corporate attorneys as salary?

I am upper middle class and I have no... READ... zero problem with the taxes my wife and I pay.

Funny that some of you should mention public employees.... how many of you help pay for your own wages? Public employees do.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Wow... you guys are going at it.

Let me ask a few simple questions.... who benefits MOST from our country is it the welfare bum making...what?.... $600 or so/month from Welfare? Or is it the conglomerate, who buys legislation that makes them billions upon billions of dollars every year... of which, millions go to their CEO's and Corporate attorneys as salary?

I am upper middle class and I have no... READ... zero problem with the taxes my wife and I pay.

Funny that some of you should mention public employees.... how many of you help pay for your own wages? Public employees do.

You're spot on here. People act as if public employees don't pay taxes like everybody else.

As a side note a lot of people forget that what other people do effects them as well. Let's say on your street there's a few foreclosures. Guess what happens to the value of your home, and thus your total assets? We don't live in economic bubbles.

 

[Steelplate]

Absolutely James... Good point about the foreclosures. And I love how the Conservative Spin machine paints all those who lost their homes as people who "bought too much house". There are hundreds of thousands of these foreclosures that had absolutely nothing to do with people overextending themselves and everything to do with these mortgage companies reselling the mortgages over and over and over again until things fell apart.

 

[Hum Dinger]

A moment of truth!

I think ya'all need to stop and reflect on this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmcf4Y3lGM]YouTube - ‪Real Estate Downfall‬‏[/ame]

 

[Steelplate]

Really Richard? How many of the foreclosed homes fall into that category.... It's real good political spin and propaganda... but do some damned research that doesn't involve the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing propaganda machine and get back to me.

 

[bripat9643]

You're spot on here. People act as if public employees don't pay taxes like everybody else.

Public employees don't pay taxes. They perform a book keeping transaction where they deduct an amount determined by formula from the tax money they receive.

As a side note a lot of people forget that what other people do effects them as well. Let's say on your street there's a few foreclosures. Guess what happens to the value of your home, and thus your total assets? We don't live in economic bubbles.

What thieves and robbers do "affects" you as well. I guess that's OK in your book. Right?

 

[manifold]

Absolutely James... Good point about the foreclosures. And I love how the Conservative Spin machine paints all those who lost their homes as people who "bought too much house". There are hundreds of thousands of these foreclosures that had absolutely nothing to do with people overextending themselves and everything to do with these mortgage companies reselling the mortgages over and over and over again until things fell apart.

The part I bolded is 100% horsefeathers, no offense. A homeowner's ability, or lack thereof, to make their own mortgage payments has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how many times that mortgage is bought and sold in secondary markets.

 

[Steelplate]

Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.