Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Wiseacre]

Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense. You can surely argue that the wars in Iraq and elsewhere were unnecessary, is that your point?

 

[manifold]

Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense.

My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared equally.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

No, that's called good fiscal sense. Like Willie said, it's where the money is.

In other words, taxation is founded on the moral code of a bank robber.

I love it when libs admit truths they didn't want to admit.

Barney Frank who was opposed to federal deficits during the Bush admin, changed his tune once the democrats gained the majority in Congress.

News Headlines.

Here's the quote by Frank.....
FRANK: I THINK AT THIS POINT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS ON AN IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN SPENDING AND I THINK THIS IS A TIME WHEN DEFICIT FEAR HAS TO TAKE A SECOND SEAT. I DO THINK THIS IS A TIME FOR A VERY IMPORTANT KIND OF DOSE OF CHANGE. YES I BELIEVE LATER ON THERE SHOULD BE TAX INCREASES. SPEAKING PERSONALLY, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF RICH PEOPLE OUT THERE WHOM WE CAN TAX AT A POINT DOWN THE ROAD AND RECOVER SOME OF THIS MONEY. BUT I DO THINK RIGHT NOW, IF WE DO NOT DO THIS KIND OF STIMULUS, THE DEFICIT WILL GET EVEN WORSE THAN IF WE DO IT. BECAUSE THE RESULTING LACK OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WILL CAUSE A LOSS IN TAX REVENUES THAT WILL SERIOUSLY DAMAGE US.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.

Please explain that.
What difference does it make how much wealth someone has?

 

[DiamondDave]

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense.

My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared equally.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.

Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....

As for national defense.. please name any group of citizens that do not fall under the blanket of national defense... any group of citizens that fall under a defense that is of lesser quality...

we'll be waiting

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.

"When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong."

yea, we have a group of entitled, do nothing slugs at the bottom looking for their handout instead of making a living on their own.

So the people working at McDonalds are do nothings, and the hedge fund managers are "making a living on their own?"

No. That's not part of the discussion. The focus is on people who can work but refuse to work because it is easier for them to feed at the taxpayer trough

 

[Gadawg73]

Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody. IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others.

As does collecting tax to fund an army. Is that also immoral?

No, national defense and security are important duties of gov't that individuals cannot do themselves. Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense, and it is therefore moral. Not to mention the fact that such respnsibilities are specifically defined in our Constitution.

There's a difference between taxing people's money for the benefit of all as opposed to spending that money to the benefit of only some citizens. There are exceptions, like supporting those who cannot support themselves, and those who need temporary help, like the people who've lost everything as a result of the tornados or can't find work due to the recession. But arbitrarily deciding what's fair and redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't just because they don't have as much is immoral IMHO.

YES, defined CONSTITUTIONALLY.
MANDATED.

 

[Gadawg73]

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense.

My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared equally.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.

Dead is DEAD.
You can't take your $$ with you.

 

[manifold]

Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....

Nothing sneaky about it. Military spending is at the core of what we are discussing. It's far more sneaky to layer in your own spin with phrases such as "strong national defense".

We are talking about SPENDING tax money to fund a Military complex. That is a fact. Let's try to stick with facts whenever possible. Deal?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.

No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants

Hmmm.... so your solution to this emotionally charged issue, for which disparate opinions abound, is to swap out the word 'fair' for the word 'equal'.

Wow man, you're a genius! There couldn't possibly any disagreement now.

The Left sees the world in terms of "equality of outcome"....Everyone else sees it in terms of "equal treatment under the law".
In other words, to the Left, equal treatment is not good enough. That more must be done to insure the possibility that all people end up equal whether they achieved or not.
That concept is incompatible with liberty, justice and freedom.

 

[manifold]

As for national defense please name any group of citizens that do not fall under the blanket of national defense... any group of citizens that fall under a defense that is of lesser quality...

I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend a position I have never taken.

My position is that the benefits of military spending are not shared equally by all citizens.

Please make your case that they are.

I'll be waiting...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

Ok....So let's say a foreign force invades the United States. But on the opposite coast from where you reside.
Our military destroys the enemy and the threat is extinguished. Is it your premise you received no benefit from the defense of your country and the people?

 

[manifold]

No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants

Hmmm.... so your solution to this emotionally charged issue, for which disparate opinions abound, is to swap out the word 'fair' for the word 'equal'.

Wow man, you're a genius! There couldn't possibly any disagreement now.

The Left sees the world in terms of "equality of outcome"....Everyone else sees it in terms of "equal treatment under the law".
In other words, to the Left, equal treatment is not good enough. That more must be done to insure the possibility that all people end up equal whether they achieved or not.
That concept is incompatible with liberty, justice and freedom.

You may actually have a valid point buried in there somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding it through the obfuscating haze of partisan rhetoric.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense.

My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared equally.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.

That's not what you stated earlier. You stated that having a strong military does not equally benefit all.
Now you are interjecting a different issue.

 

[manifold]

Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

Ok....So let's say a foreign force invades the United States. But on the opposite coast from where you reside.
Our military destroys the enemy and the threat is extinguished. Is it your premise you received no benefit from the defense of your country and the people?

My premise is there is no logical basis whatsoever to support the notion that the benefits derived from military spending are shared equally. To imagine that it's even possible, let alone plausible, strikes me as decidedly imbecilic.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....

Nothing sneaky about it. Military spending is at the core of what we are discussing. It's far more sneaky to layer in your own spin with phrases such as "strong national defense".

We are talking about SPENDING tax money to fund a Military complex. That is a fact. Let's try to stick with facts whenever possible. Deal?

No.. it is completely different... because a person with a job in the military or a business owner who wins a contract from the military can be deemed as benefiting differently from military spending... but that person is not benefiting any differently from the same national defense as a citizen as anyone else

 

[manifold]

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from a strong national defense.

My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared equally.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.

That's not what you stated earlier. You stated that having a strong military does not equally benefit all.
Now you are interjecting a different issue.

Again, I'm simply trying to deal in facts whenever possible. The fact of the matter is that we collect taxes and spend that money on a military. Whether or not we get a strong military in return, or if 100% of that spending improves military strength, are matters of opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

We should redistribute weath because Jesus says so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.

separation of church and state bro. don't go looking to bring religion into this argument. you libs took jesus out of the equation, remember

No one can take Jesus out of the equation, my friend.

I suppose you're then OK with legislating all of the morality laid out in the bible?

 

[manifold]

DD's logic

- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of military spending of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of having a strong national defense is shared equally.

DD's logic applied to welfare
- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of welfare of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of less hunger, poverty and crime is shared equally.


Ok, works for me.