Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Friends]

What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.

 

[bripat9643]

What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.

You're delusional if you think most Americans benefit from most of the spending of the federal government. Most Americans are positively harmed by the federal government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.

Congratulations.

Virtually EVERYTHING you claim is utterly false. It's nearly amazing that you could spew such nonsense in complete contrast to established fact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yes but what was produced in the USA needed to be managed too so I see no net gain if Chinese/Indian production needs to be managed too

Some yes, some no. I'm not just talking about managing the workers, I'm talking about managing the process. Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs. And typically the higher paying ones are here. And there are more of them.

Fear, fear, oh fear. The Democrats love you, man. Fear is their chief product. #2 is greed.

No idea what point you are trying to make? China and India have added 500 million very low wage workers with more to come and that is taking millions and millions of jobs from the USA. Now you understand one of the reasons unemployment is up and wages are down.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top.

of course thats a liberal lie!! Its happening here becuase liberals have destroyed the public schools and the American family. Then, you add liberal corporate taxes, liberal unions, and 20 million liberal illegals and you see that in reality liberals have declared war on the middle and lower class.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China is a Communist Country that has been growing at 15%.

want to be $10,000???

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease. Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease. Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?

pretty long winded. Why not get to the point. Are you liberal or conservative and why!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease. Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?

pretty longer winded. Why not get to the point. Are you liberal or conservative and why!

How would whether I'm liberal or conservative have anything to do with the point of this thread?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease. Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?

pretty longer winded. Why not get to the point. Are you liberal or conservative and why!

How would whether I'm liberal or conservative have anything to do with the point of this thread?

liberals like wealth distribution while conservatives don't.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease. Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?

pretty longer winded. Why not get to the point. Are you liberal or conservative and why!

How would whether I'm liberal or conservative have anything to do with the point of this thread?

liberals like wealth distribution while conservatives don't.

Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing. Which proves my point , the government shouldn't be deciding policy on morality.

 

[hipeter924]

What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.

Congratulations.

Virtually EVERYTHING you claim is utterly false. It's nearly amazing that you could spew such nonsense in complete contrast to established fact.

The natural tendency of capitalism is to distribute wealth to whatever person or groups that can ever establish a monopoly on a product or idea, or distribute a product or idea most effectively. In between that you have financial institutions, which attempt to profit from this distribution of wealth, some of those institutions are corrupt and inefficient - and true free market economists would have demanded that there be no bailouts so that those institutions would have 'rightly collapsed' in 2008-10.

As for 'progressive taxation', most countries benefit most from flat tax structures that don't provide special benefits to any income group, and don't allow exemptions from taxation - but don't require people or businesses to pay any more than is reasonable.

For instance, if a country taxes those earning 10,000-20,000 a year at 15%, those earning 25,000-100,000 20%, and those earning above 100,000 30% but keeps it at a flat tax rate is more tolerable. But some would argue that taxes should be the same like a flat tax rate of 15-20% or so for all income groups. That said, business tax is even more complex because of off-shore activities, paying employees and so on (so flat taxes are more beneficial to businesses too).

Lastly, Bill Clinton was no 'Keynesian', in fact his administration carried out de-regulation of the financial sector and agricultural concerns, not to mention put in place even more substantial corporate welfare subsidies. Democrats shouldn't look at Bill Clinton's administration as anything but a wolf in sheep's clothing, but more often than not because he wears the 'Democrat' label and is likable, they can turn a blind eye to the questionable legislation passed while he was in office.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing.

dear, a conservative will not like wealth distribution and think it immoral. A liberal is a bigot who thinks he's morally superior because he likes more and more welfare redistribution for all. Isn't thinking fun?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing.

dear, a conservative will not like wealth distribution and think it immoral. A liberal is a bigot who thinks he's morally superior because he likes more and more welfare redistribution for all. Isn't thinking fun?

And I reiterate, we don't govern based on what is moral, so therefor the question of is welfare moral is moot. And so to is the question of whether I am a conservative or a liberal for purposes of this topic.

Furthermore, I find it repugnant to assume that all conservatives are against welfare and all liberals are for it, because if that is true than all conservatives and all liberals are useless slugs who subscribe to political dogma rather than thinking for themselves.

 

[dnsmith35]

Wages may have gone up Kaz, but buying power has gone down for a large group of Americans.

I am hoping EdwardBaiamonte posts his dissertation where he proves the field of economics is wrong. That would be an interesting read. Nothing so far. Until he does, I'm still going to believe the field of economics isn't wrong, Edward is...

are you saying that wages for americans are going up according to economists?

What seems to be happening is, not an increase in wages for the middle class, but spreading the wealth around to those below or on the cusp of the middle class. Nut what is absolute is, wealth is not a zero sum game. The more wealthy ARE NOT DETRACTING FROM THE WEALTH OF THE LESS WEALTHY.

 

[dnsmith35]

the economy has been surging since the recession.

China is surging with about 7-10% GDP for 30 years. Care to think again.

It is not a matter of "thinking." It is a matter of looking at the data.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

 

[dnsmith35]

yes but what was produced in the USA needed to be managed too so I see no net gain if Chinese/Indian production needs to be managed too

Some yes, some no. I'm not just talking about managing the workers, I'm talking about managing the process. Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs. And typically the higher paying ones are here. And there are more of them.

Fear, fear, oh fear. The Democrats love you, man. Fear is their chief product. #2 is greed.

No idea what point you are trying to make? China and India have added 500 million very low wage workers with more to come and that is taking millions and millions of jobs from the USA. Now you understand one of the reasons unemployment is up and wages are down.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

In addition, our prosperity has grown because of outsourcing labor intensive low paying jobs all the while helping to create a mass market for US goods over the long haul. In India alone there is a 300+million middle class and more going up as we speak. Keeping all the menial jobs at home does not help our labor force, it frees them for the more complex type of labor they are beginning to enjoy.

 

[zeke]

It is not a matter of "thinking." It is a matter of looking at the data.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

You didn't read your own link now did you? Read the paragraph where it states that at best the effect is neutral because the .72 figure that was quoted was statistically insignificant.

Try again to prove the sending jobs that Americans used to perform overseas is now creating MORE jobs in the USA than what was lost. .72 will not convince anyone. Except you evidently. But then, you are a right winger and will believe just about anything that is harmful to my country.

 

[zeke]

Yea lets send all the good paying manufacturing jobs that pay an average of 25 dollars an hour out of the country and replace them with 10 dollar an hour service sector jobs and then tell the Americans that lost their good paying jobs how much better they have it with out that good paying job.

You are an idiot dude. You probably think? that Americans are enjoying a rising standard of living from all those low paying service sector jobs. Right?

I know, you are comparing our standard of living to India. Right? Maybe you could move to India and get you one of those fine jobs. Yes?

 

[kaz]

Wages may have gone up Kaz, but buying power has gone down for a large group of Americans.

I am hoping EdwardBaiamonte posts his dissertation where he proves the field of economics is wrong. That would be an interesting read. Nothing so far. Until he does, I'm still going to believe the field of economics isn't wrong, Edward is...

are you saying that wages for americans are going up according to economists?

What seems to be happening is, not an increase in wages for the middle class, but spreading the wealth around to those below or on the cusp of the middle class. Nut what is absolute is, wealth is not a zero sum game. The more wealthy ARE NOT DETRACTING FROM THE WEALTH OF THE LESS WEALTHY.

The objective of liberalism is to even the slices of pie no matter how small they make the pie in their quest to do it. I want more pie, I'm not jealous of how much someone else got as long as I got what I earned. And in a free market, we can all earn as much as we want.