Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[M14 Shooter]

It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires.

No. To redistribute wealth, said wealth is taken from party A and, absent any premise of compenation for goods/services renderd, given to party B so that he might live better.

You descibe a failure to provide equal protection.

Having one's fire put out at the expense of another would qualify I think.

No. Party B does not receive the weath generated by party A, and so the wealth was, by defintion, not redistributed to party B.

 

[Foxfyre]

Society is by definition about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.

The question isn't does a society distribute wealth (it must) the question is

DOES THE SOCIETY DISTRIBUTE WEALTH IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE?

Societies that fail to do so aren't very successful.

There is a world of difference, however. There is wealth distribution that naturally arises out of free trade conducted between people, each expecting to receive value for their part in that trade. And there is wealth redistribution in which one party receives value and the other not only does not receive value, but has his/her wealth confiscated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Society is by definition about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

Even if that were true - and it isn't - it does not then follow that society depends on the redistribution of wealth - unless, of course, you self-servingly redefine the term to suit your agenda.

 

[Againsheila]

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?

Define "earn". Somehow I don't believe CEO's "earn" 500 times more money than their employees.

Yeah... the CEO skillset, depth of knowledge, risk, commitment, etc is such a common thing that any of their employees can do it

Let alone the fact that you can ask for, demand, negotiate whatever is in the range that fits the need for both sides (employer and potential employee)... and because of the limited amount of people who can actually perform and run a multi million or billion dollar corporation, those who can will demand a hefty sum

Gregory F.A. Pierce (co-founder, Business Executives for Social Justice, 2001): "From a spiritual point of view, it cannot be true that the work of the CEOs of some companies is worth a thousand times that of some other of their employees, just as it cannot be true that because you can get people to work full time for minimum wage they are justly compensated."

 

[Foxfyre]

No. To redistribute wealth, said wealth is taken from party A and, absent any premise of compenation for goods/services renderd, given to party B so that he might live better.

You descibe a failure to provide equal protection.

Having one's fire put out at the expense of another would qualify I think.

No. Party B does not receive the weath generated by party A, and so the wealth was, by defintion, not redistributed to party B.

But Party B does receive a benefit not available to Party A. Party B is far richer by having the benefit than he would have been without it while Party A is only poorer. When Party A's property is confiscated without due compensation and is used to benefit/enrich Party B, that is wealth redistribution at least as I define it.

 

[Spoonman]

Society is by definition about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.

The question isn't does a society distribute wealth (it must) the question is

DOES THE SOCIETY DISTRIBUTE WEALTH IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE?

Societies that fail to do so aren't very successful.

mmmm maybe in communist russia where the individual is owned by the government. Is that what we are going for here?

 

[manifold]

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution. Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness. And that's ubertarded.

True there can be different defintions of fair. But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.

You want the rich to be taxed more yet the fact is taxing the more will not provide you the extra money for all your precious government entitlements. Regardless of you manipulate the tax code, tax revenues always tend to stay between %15-%20 of GDP.

The 'definition' of fair ain't got squat to do with it. It's one's subjective 'determination' of fair that is at issue. And due to the subjectivity of the matter, opinions naturally vary.

 

[Spoonman]

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution. Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness. And that's ubertarded.

True there can be different defintions of fair. But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.

You want the rich to be taxed more yet the fact is taxing the more will not provide you the extra money for all your precious government entitlements. Regardless of you manipulate the tax code, tax revenues always tend to stay between %15-%20 of GDP.

The 'definition' of fair ain't got squat to do with it. It's one's subjective 'determination' of fair that is at issue. And due to the subjectivity of the matter, opinions naturally vary.

but the rich will always remain in control. they will tolerate so much. sure it's easier to quell the masses and throw them a bone. But when they cross the line and start wanting meat on the bone the givers push back. Then you get oppression.

 

[manifold]

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

Simple.

This particular 'public' service offers much greater value to the owner of an expensive home, located relatively close to a fire station, than it does to the owner of a decrepit shack located so far away from the nearest fire station that even in the event of a fire they wouldn't be much help.


Edit: My apologies. You asked me to show how it takes from haves and gives to have nots. In this case it's actually the other way around. But it's still redistribution of wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires. As long as the rich man benefits equally in fire protection, there is no redistribution of wealth.

What about taxing a childless person to fund schools?

 

[editec]

Society is by definition about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.

The question isn't does a society distribute wealth (it must) the question is

DOES THE SOCIETY DISTRIBUTE WEALTH IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE?

Societies that fail to do so aren't very successful.

There is a world of difference, however. There is wealth distribution that naturally arises out of free trade conducted between people, each expecting to receive value for their part in that trade. And there is wealth redistribution in which one party receives value and the other not only does not receive value, but has his/her wealth confiscated.

Yes there certainly is a world of difference.

The key to unraveling the difference is whether the wealth that's taxed by government is actually giving the taxpayer something of value.

When government isn't working well, when they do not give good value for the taxes they take from the citizens, then it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to object to that tax and that goverment.

In the case of all but (I think) a very SMALL percentage of the population, our government does NOT give back nearly what it ought to give back to taxpayers.

The most aggrieved citizens are, in my opinion, the middle and EVEN most of upper classes.

Now there are obviously exceptions to that of course.

But generally speaking working people -- even working people who are making middle SIX FIGURES or low SEVEN figures are being taxed inappropriately for the VALUE they recieve.

Of course I have very little sympathy for those top 1% of the population who are complaining that they are overtaxed.

Obviously they are recieiving great benefit from being citizens in this nation and what they pay in taxes to government seems fair enough given the benefits they must be getting by being citizens of this nation,

BUT if they think that they are overtaxed, those ATLASES ought to SHRUG OFF that horrid burden of taxation and find another nation where they'll be more appreciated.

But you know...they don't leave, Fixfyre.

Why not?

I suspect its because there's no place where they're better treated or would be taxed at a lower rate than the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires. As long as the rich man benefits equally in fire protection, there is no redistribution of wealth.

What about taxing a childless person to fund schools?

No different than taxing the property owner who will never have a fire in order to fund a Fire Department or the person who is never a victim of a crime in order to fund a Police Department. The schools are available to that childless person should he choose or inadvertently acquire child. He is not prohibited from using the benefit in any way, form, or fashion. And the entire community benefits from having a good school just as the entire community benefits from having a Fire Department or Police Department or any other nondiscriminatory service selected to be incorporated into the social contract.

Social Contract to promote the general welfare is not wealth redistribution as long as no discriminatory criteria of any kind is applied to one group and not others.

It becomes wealth redistribution only when some are privy to benefits and others are not privy to the same benefits even though they are required to provide them.

 

[The T]

It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires. As long as the rich man benefits equally in fire protection, there is no redistribution of wealth.

What about taxing a childless person to fund schools?

No different than taxing the property owner who will never have a fire in order to fund a Fire Department or the person who is never a victim of a crime in order to fund a Police Department. The schools are available to that childless person should he choose or inadvertently acquire child. He is not prohibited from using the benefit in any way, form, or fashion. And the entire community benefits from having a good school just as the entire community benefits from having a Fire Department or Police Department or any other nondiscriminatory service selected to be incorporated into the social contract.

Social Contract to promote the general welfare is not wealth redistribution as long as no discriminatory criteria of any kind is applied to one group and not others.

It becomes wealth redistribution only when some are privy to benefits and others are not privy to the same benefits even though they are required to provide them.

ETA: Good question...WHY waivers for some to ObamaCare...and not others? Just one way your statement can be applied. After all? Fairness counts, does it not?

 

[Wiseacre]

Society is by definition about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.

The question isn't does a society distribute wealth (it must) the question is

DOES THE SOCIETY DISTRIBUTE WEALTH IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE?

Societies that fail to do so aren't very successful.

There is a world of difference, however. There is wealth distribution that naturally arises out of free trade conducted between people, each expecting to receive value for their part in that trade. And there is wealth redistribution in which one party receives value and the other not only does not receive value, but has his/her wealth confiscated.

Yes there certainly is a world of difference.

The key to unraveling the difference is whether the wealth that's taxed by government is actually giving the taxpayer something of value.

When government isn't working well, when they do not give good value for the taxes they take from the citizens, then it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to object to that tax and that goverment.

In the case of all but (I think) a very SMALL percentage of the population, our government does NOT give back nearly what it ought to give back to taxpayers.

The most aggrieved citizens are, in my opinion, the middle and EVEN most of upper classes.

Now there are obviously exceptions to that of course.

But generally speaking working people -- even working people who are making middle SIX FIGURES or low SEVEN figures are being taxed inappropriately for the VALUE they recieve.

Of course I have very little sympathy for those top 1% of the population who are complaining that they are overtaxed.

Obviously they are recieiving great benefit from being citizens in this nation and what they pay in taxes to government seems fair enough given the benefits they must be getting by being citizens of this nation,

BUT if they think that they are overtaxed, those ATLASES ought to SHRUG OFF that horrid burden of taxation and find another nation where they'll be more appreciated.

But you know...they don't leave, Fixfyre.

Why not?

I suspect its because there's no place where they're better treated or would be taxed at a lower rate than the USA.

Actually, there are a lot of people leaving, we have millions of Americans living off shore and hundreds if not thousands actually renouncing their American citizenship every year. Why do you think the Gov't is trying to force foreign banks to report American accounts exceeding $10,000? It's because we have a lot of Americans and their money leaving.

It ain't all taxes of course, there's other reasons. But there's a lot of places where you can live pretty high on the hog for a lot less money. And a lot of places where you can move your business or start a new one and be more profitable than here. How stupid is that, our own gov'ts policies are incentivizing Americans to leave and disincentivizing foreign investors to go elsewhere.

 

[boedicca]

And many of the ones who remain in America have gone Galt.

 

[The T]

There is a world of difference, however. There is wealth distribution that naturally arises out of free trade conducted between people, each expecting to receive value for their part in that trade. And there is wealth redistribution in which one party receives value and the other not only does not receive value, but has his/her wealth confiscated.

Yes there certainly is a world of difference.

The key to unraveling the difference is whether the wealth that's taxed by government is actually giving the taxpayer something of value.

When government isn't working well, when they do not give good value for the taxes they take from the citizens, then it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to object to that tax and that goverment.

In the case of all but (I think) a very SMALL percentage of the population, our government does NOT give back nearly what it ought to give back to taxpayers.

The most aggrieved citizens are, in my opinion, the middle and EVEN most of upper classes.

Now there are obviously exceptions to that of course.

But generally speaking working people -- even working people who are making middle SIX FIGURES or low SEVEN figures are being taxed inappropriately for the VALUE they recieve.

Of course I have very little sympathy for those top 1% of the population who are complaining that they are overtaxed.

Obviously they are recieiving great benefit from being citizens in this nation and what they pay in taxes to government seems fair enough given the benefits they must be getting by being citizens of this nation,

BUT if they think that they are overtaxed, those ATLASES ought to SHRUG OFF that horrid burden of taxation and find another nation where they'll be more appreciated.

But you know...they don't leave, Fixfyre.

Why not?

I suspect its because there's no place where they're better treated or would be taxed at a lower rate than the USA.

Actually, there are a lot of people leaving, we have millions of Americans living off shore and hundreds if not thousands actually renouncing their American citizenship every year. Why do you think the Gov't is trying to force foreign banks to report American accounts exceeding $10,000? It's because we have a lot of Americans and their money leaving.

It ain't all taxes of course, there's other reasons. But there's a lot of places where you can live pretty high on the hog for a lot less money. And a lot of places where you can move your business or start a new one and be more profitable than here. How stupid is that, our own gov'ts policies are incentivizing Americans to leave and disincentivizing foreign investors to go elsewhere.

Precisely. And it is all for the sake of control on the part of an overzealous,overbearing Federal Government that have forgotten thier place...and really need to be reminded.

 

[Wiseacre]

Yes there certainly is a world of difference.

The key to unraveling the difference is whether the wealth that's taxed by government is actually giving the taxpayer something of value.

When government isn't working well, when they do not give good value for the taxes they take from the citizens, then it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to object to that tax and that goverment.

In the case of all but (I think) a very SMALL percentage of the population, our government does NOT give back nearly what it ought to give back to taxpayers.

The most aggrieved citizens are, in my opinion, the middle and EVEN most of upper classes.

Now there are obviously exceptions to that of course.

But generally speaking working people -- even working people who are making middle SIX FIGURES or low SEVEN figures are being taxed inappropriately for the VALUE they recieve.

Of course I have very little sympathy for those top 1% of the population who are complaining that they are overtaxed.

Obviously they are recieiving great benefit from being citizens in this nation and what they pay in taxes to government seems fair enough given the benefits they must be getting by being citizens of this nation,

BUT if they think that they are overtaxed, those ATLASES ought to SHRUG OFF that horrid burden of taxation and find another nation where they'll be more appreciated.

But you know...they don't leave, Fixfyre.

Why not?

I suspect its because there's no place where they're better treated or would be taxed at a lower rate than the USA.

Actually, there are a lot of people leaving, we have millions of Americans living off shore and hundreds if not thousands actually renouncing their American citizenship every year. Why do you think the Gov't is trying to force foreign banks to report American accounts exceeding $10,000? It's because we have a lot of Americans and their money leaving.

It ain't all taxes of course, there's other reasons. But there's a lot of places where you can live pretty high on the hog for a lot less money. And a lot of places where you can move your business or start a new one and be more profitable than here. How stupid is that, our own gov'ts policies are incentivizing Americans to leave and disincentivizing foreign investors to go elsewhere.

Precisely. And it is all for the sake of control on the part of an overzealous,overbearing Federal Government that have forgotten thier place...and really need to be reminded.

I think they got reminded last november, but maybe it didn't take.

 

[Rodack]

Obama has created record debt, record poverty, record foreclosures, record war spending and record food stamp programs



Is that what educated democrats call progress?


LOL


Democrats create ghettos


Nothing more

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This country does not like freeloaders....

.....But, loves the shit outta hustlers, rip-offs, and every other kind o' "conservative" trash!!!​

"people should all just teach their kids to steal whatever they can get their hands on, whenever they can get their hands on it.

- after all, that's the morality that drives the "winner" class."

Reaganbushenomics​

 

[thereisnospoon]

Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires. As long as the rich man benefits equally in fire protection, there is no redistribution of wealth.

What about taxing a childless person to fund schools?

Which begs the question why renters in a community are not required to pay a tax equal to that of the value of the property on which they live in lieu of the tax property owners pay.
In my opinion this would be a fantastic way to insure all residents contribute to the local schools.
Last week I was waiting for a school bus to unload it's compliment of cupcakes. At least 60 kids got off the bus into the waiting arms of their apartment dwelling parents.
Meanwhile, across town there are single family homes with few or no children and each owner pays hefty amounts to the community to fund schools. Is that right?
I think renters should pay a tax to fund schools as well. Why should they get to enjoy the advantages of the community without paying the price of admission?