Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Uncensored2008]

You're joking right? Have you looked at the job opportunities lately? Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?

Have you forgotten the real problem with employment? Obama?

BTW sparky, there are more jobs today than there were in 2000.

More than in 2007.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most people who wanted to work found work in 2000 though. Also in 2007. It isn't quite so easy to find work that you want to do these days. And I question whether there are more jobs now, but if there are, I'm pretty sure it's because of the hundreds of thousands of government jobs added since Obama took office and not because of economic growth.

And are you guys really arguing about whether the national defense is equally applied? You've got to be kidding. Is not the homeless guy at the shelter protected in the same way as the guy in the multi-million dollar mansion?

Inequality is not in who is defended. That works very well. The inequality is in the pork and favoritism of who gets the defense contracts and that is something everybody should be looking at.

To correct that situation, however, as well as in all other government spending, we will have to make it illegal for the Federal government to dispense charity or favoritism of any kind. Do that, and we will fix a multitude of problems.

 

[boedicca]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Are you kidding? Do you think people who are capable of defending themselves benefit less by not being put into a position of having to do so?

Puh-leeeze. That is absolute popppycock.

 

[Spoonman]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?

 

[Spoonman]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Are you kidding? Do you think people who are capable of defending themselves benefit less by not being put into a position of having to do so?

Puh-leeeze. That is absolute popppycock.

Maybe, if future wars were going to be fought with handguns and hunting rifles instead of aircraft carriers, tomohawk missles and drones.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?

Well I think I know Manifold well enough to know that he didn't intend this the way I think a lot of us are taking it.

But if you look at the arguments some are making, those who make/earn/acquire more wealth should pay more but be entitled to less in government services than those who make/earn/acquire less.

So if you translate that same logic to national defense, the guy with a shotgun, deer rifle, and a couple of handguns should not be entitled to the same protection as the guy who has no gun.

Sometimes these things become absolutely that absurd.

 

[Spoonman]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?

Well I think I know Manifold well enough to know that he didn't intend this the way I think a lot of us are taking it.

But if you look at the arguments some are making, those who make/earn/acquire more wealth should pay more but be entitled to less in government services than those who make/earn/acquire less.

So if you translate that same logic to national defense, the guy with a shotgun, deer rifle, and a couple of handguns should not be entitled to the same protection as the guy who has no gun.

Sometimes these things become absolutely that absurd.

I think the rich should pay more. that makes absolute sense. And every one should be entitled to the same level of protection. even if they pay nothing at all. No issues with any of that. Where I see the problem with all of this is I don't think the rich should be taxed to support the poor, and by that I mean pay for them to live, welfare and all that. And I don't think they should be taxed more and more as those costs are ever increasing.

by the same token, I don't think they should be taxed more because government inefficiencies continue to drive up costs.

We need to stop bandaiding problems and fix them

 

[Foxfyre]

Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?

Well I think I know Manifold well enough to know that he didn't intend this the way I think a lot of us are taking it.

But if you look at the arguments some are making, those who make/earn/acquire more wealth should pay more but be entitled to less in government services than those who make/earn/acquire less.

So if you translate that same logic to national defense, the guy with a shotgun, deer rifle, and a couple of handguns should not be entitled to the same protection as the guy who has no gun.

Sometimes these things become absolutely that absurd.

I think the rich should pay more. that makes absolute sense. And every one should be entitled to the same level of protection. even if they pay nothing at all. No issues with any of that. Where I see the problem with all of this is I don't think the rich should be taxed to support the poor, and by that I mean pay for them to live, welfare and all that. And I don't think they should be taxed more and more as those costs are ever increasing.

by the same token, I don't think they should be taxed more because government inefficiencies continue to drive up costs.

We need to stop bandaiding problems and fix them

I am a flat tax person. I think the rich and poor alike should pay exactly the same percentage of taxes based on whatever criteria we come up with. I prefer an income tax, but an absolutely flat tax, but I'm open to anything that would make more sense to me.

Under such a system the rich man will indeed be paying a great deal more than the poor man, but the poor man should pay something nevertheless so that he has a stake in the system, he incurs whatever benefits or consequences result from actions of Congress, and incentive to vote for the best government he can get rather than the one who will take from the rich to give to him.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Ok.. Let me make this clear. The money we spend on our military is a Constitutionally mandated essential function of government. There is no intent to "share" some perceived benefit.
The military exists to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

What is it you expect to receive as a result of military spending.
Ya know what.....Never mind. I am not interested in your twisted logic on this matter. Reason: See above after "let me make this clear".

The 'constitutionality' of the various mechanisms for wealth redistribution is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm talking about the morality of it, not the constitutionality.

So noted

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?

Well I think I know Manifold well enough to know that he didn't intend this the way I think a lot of us are taking it.

But if you look at the arguments some are making, those who make/earn/acquire more wealth should pay more but be entitled to less in government services than those who make/earn/acquire less.

So if you translate that same logic to national defense, the guy with a shotgun, deer rifle, and a couple of handguns should not be entitled to the same protection as the guy who has no gun.

Sometimes these things become absolutely that absurd.

I think the rich should pay more. that makes absolute sense. And every one should be entitled to the same level of protection. even if they pay nothing at all. No issues with any of that. Where I see the problem with all of this is I don't think the rich should be taxed to support the poor, and by that I mean pay for them to live, welfare and all that. And I don't think they should be taxed more and more as those costs are ever increasing.

by the same token, I don't think they should be taxed more because government inefficiencies continue to drive up costs.

We need to stop bandaiding problems and fix them

Since it makes sense to you, why should the rich "pay more"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Refocusing on the discussion between Spoonman and Manifold, how did 'provide the common defense' become an issue of morality? But is it not moral to defend oneself? To defend the innocent? To protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people?

There is indeed room to argue morality of specific military actions or expenditures, but the concept of common defense in the Constitution was not one based on morality but necessity in order for the people to have their rights secured.

And to secure those rights was defended on moral grounds by the Founders. And the Founders knew that the Constitution securing those rights would only work with a mostly religious and moral people.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the question should focus on the morality of Forced Wealth redistribution. AKA Robbery.

I'm completely against Robbery in all it's forms, legal or illegal.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have income redistribution. Wealth redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking income from those who have more income.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.

Semantics Poo. As soon as I receive it, my income IS my wealth.

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

 

[Uncensored2008]

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Got it!

 

[dblack]

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Got it!

It is a little curious how so many regulations nominally designed to punish the wealthy and powerful actually protect them.

 

[freedombecki]

...helped along with Pub deregulation and lack of enforcement...10 years of "Deregulation!!" and "Corporations know best!" gets you this EVERY TIME!! Ay caramba...Keating Five, S+L Crisis, huge deficits, fraud, bubbles, and a great recession. The myth of Pub business sense is a farce...

You're blaming the Keating Five on the Republican Party?

Do you know which party each Senator involved was in? I do:

Alan Cranston, D-CA

Dennis DeConcini, D-AZ

Donald W. Riegle, D-MI

John Glenn, D-OH

John McCain, R-AZ

From Wikipedia:

Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".​

Picture and historical credits

The only Republican involved did not do what was claimed he did, and he proved it to the Senate Ethics Committee.

You need to get your facts correct before you start slinging serious mud around. This week, I completed work on 6 quilts for a Russian orphanage. No offense, but it is important to me to do what I can to help our two countries get along, including straightening out this kind of a political error that is egregious and based in emotion, not in fact.

Please do not sling mud at people who are your country's friend when they are called upon to help. I've been to Russia. I know the Russian people have had hardships, but they also have friends who value their role in bringing about world peace, which is sorely needed.

All you need is love to heal a rift. Anger to the point of being blind to the facts should be lessened when all the facts are on the table and nothing is hidden.

There's no doubt in my mind, some Republicans have made mistakes, and that is front page news in the liberal media. When Democrats make mistakes, their story is ignored, or placed on page 63 at the bottom where the greater public is least likely to take any notice, as the words are soft. The words delivered against any Republican are glaring, harsh, and melodramatic. Don't be deceived by America's mad dog partisan press.

 

[freedombecki]

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Got it!

It is a little curious how so many regulations nominally designed to punish the wealthy and powerful actually protect them.

Hello, dblack, and welcome to USMessageboards.

Our founders built America so people could enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they created a loose federation of states that had certain governance rights.

The government was mainly formed to oversee a militia that would protect these shores from unfriendly advances from anybody with a gunboat and ambitions to steal people's earnings. Now the government acts like it wants to steal people's earnings. That is the focus of conservatives, to keep government out of people's personal business where government was never intended to be. The free enterprise system should still be open to all who'd like to pursue wealth.

I'm appalled at government being run by people who have forgotten American tenets.

 

[Rodack]

If Democrat socialist scum want to redistribute their wealth, then have at it. Give it away.

Freedom is the right to choose NOT to give away ones wealth



America was built on individual rights, personal property rights and laws protecting me and my stuff.


Not collectivism


If you want collectivism:

go to Cuba (where they just cut Gov't parasitic employees by 50% ) or Venezuala ( where they have energy blackouts and rationing ) or Iceland ( where their money is worthless and business is fleeing ) or Bankrutped Spain, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, or France ( which is currently on fire becuase the lazy have to work 1 more year before the state take care of them forever.........Collectivism is for Socialist Tyrants that want to control your lives and your money in order to gain power over the masses.

Nothing more

 

[Gunny]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Like the Chief didn't ask you any of the above, Mr Deflection.

 

[dblack]

Hello, dblack, and welcome to USMessageboards.

Many thanks. Seems like a pretty good board so far.

I'm appalled at government being run by people who have forgotten American tenets.

Me too. But I think you may have missed my point. Many of our economic regulations and tax policies are justified on the assumption that they will somehow 'punish' wealth, or even redistribute it. Despite that, they often work (either inadvertently, or by design) to do the opposite. I was particularly responding to Uncensored's implication that taxing income actually protects the privileged status of established wealth. Regulations often have these kinds of unintended consequences or moral hazard associated with them.