Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Againsheila]

I don't understand your point. Household income is household income regardless of the size of the household. If you are insinuating that fewer people in a household are working now, I think that's unlikely since more and more women (wives) have gone to work it seems that more of the lower classes are worker, not fewer. This would make the chart even worse than it looks.

I'm not surprised that you don't get it. That's why you're a liberal.

If household income has to be shared among fewer people, then those people are relatively wealthier.

I grew up in a family with 7 children. Nowadays, families with more than 2 children are rare. According to you, if both families bring in 100K per year, they are both equally well off. You have to be a moron to believe that.

Also, a lot more families consist of single mothers or just plain single people. According to your lame understanding of economics, a single person making 100K is no better off than a family of 4 bringing in 100K.

I could go on, but that should suffice to show the flaw in your chart.

It's not my chart, and I'm not a liberal. I grew up in a family with 5 children. My neighbor has 8. Guess what? It's cheaper by the dozen. Ie, the more you have, the cheaper they are.

Oh, and while European Americans have limited their children to replacement value, immigrants, 1st and 2nd generation, of which we have millions, have an average of 7.5 kids per family.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?

So, you would support a flat tax rate with no deductions for any reason? Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama actually paying taxes? Think carefully, there are party members at risk!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't understand the question. The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

There was for Americans in the country legally. The rise of the MW shifted jobs once held by teens to illegal aliens. Almost as if it were planned.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm new to this thread, but thought I'd check it out. The usual lib vs con insults of course without much progression of the real topic.

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

If you make a million a year, 1K in taxes won't hurt as much as 1K in taxes for someone who makes 35K per year. The shared pain just isn't the same. The poorer person gets stabbed more.

Yes, financial incentives are important to factor into any analysis of people's motivations, but people aren't going to STOP trying to make money just because they're taxed more. And while there are indeed welfare cheats and unemployment bums, as Mark Twain said, "highly exaggerated".

 

[dblack]

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

I think you're right, that this is the perspective of those arguing for progressive taxation, but I think it's wrong for a number of reasons.

First of all, taxation isn't a 'penalty'. Presumably we aren't being taxed because we've committed a crime, or done anything wrong. Taxes are just a matter of paying for government.

As such, the concept of equalizing the 'burden' (which will always be a completely subjective estimation) is silly. Would you recommend that all our other 'costs of living' be equalized in this same manner? Is it fair that someone who makes 30k a year should have to pay the same for a gallon of milk as someone who make ten times that much?

 

[eflatminor]

Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs. Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage? Talk about missing the point.

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way. The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration. Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job? It's already gone.

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth. Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment. Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.

You have no ability to focus on the point at hand. None. We already told you that unemployment rates do not take into consideration those that have stopped looking for a job...exactly the most vulnerable people we're talking about. You just are not willing to accept the reality that the minimum wage prevents the neediest Americans from working at all. That speaks VOLUMES about your morality.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the argument and it is beyond ridiculous on its own. You and your sister are not the below minimum wage workers we are talking about...but you really know that unless you're even less intelligent than you appear.

My job, that went to India, I was making just a little over minimum wage. If you are paying less than minimum wage, you are breaking the law.

That's it, I give up. You are being purposefully obtuse. We'll mark you down as someone whose "morality" supports preventing the most vulnerable from supporting themselves. Sick.

 

[jgarden]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

The redistribution of wealth is inherent in all government legislation dealing with the taxation and expenditure of money. Wealth and political contributions "buys" access and influence to the government decision makers who craft and vote on this legislation.

All one has to do is follow the "money trail" for the last 30 years to determine the who have been the "winners" and "losers" in this process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All one has to do is follow the "money trail" for the last 30 years to determine the who have been the "winners" and "losers" in this process.

I'm thinking the "winners" are the ones retiring with 90% salary for life after 20 years of government "service."

I'm thinking the losers are all the poor fuckers in the productive sector paying for these pampered aristocrats.

 

[Stuckinarut]

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?

Priceless

 

[bripat9643]

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

What moral principle is that based on? Should the burden the local grocery store imposes on everyone be the same? Should rich people have to pay 5 times more for tomatoes than poor people? Should they pay 5 times more for gas?

Your principle is total bullshit. It's really the moral code of thieves. They take money from rich people because they can get more that way.

That's the only "principle" there is behind progressive taxation.

 

[MikeK]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

What you've said suggests that everything one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true. And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then? Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today? The answer is the economy was strong and healthy. It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed. In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history. Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth. The problem we have is with excessive wealth. The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American!

 

[ShackledNation]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

What you've said suggests that everything one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true. And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then? Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today? The answer is the economy was strong and healthy. It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed. In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history. Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth. The problem we have is with excessive wealth. The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American!

Those were the most prosperous years in our history? Really? Talk about cherry picking data. You excluded the massive economic expansion of the 19th century, as wells as the 1920s. History did not start in 1950. Also, correlation is not causation. In the 50s, we did not have as much government in our lives. You are also looking soley at income tax, as if it is the only tax and all that matters. Nor do you take into account loopholes, the amount of revenue actually collected, and the real rate that the rich paid. It was actually far less. It took me an entire paragraph to simply list a few of the flaws in your argument. I haven't even gone into detail yet.

 

[Immanuel]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

What you've said suggests that everything one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true. And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then? Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today? The answer is the economy was strong and healthy. It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed. In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history. Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth. The problem we have is with excessive wealth. The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American!

Does the fact that there were millionaires back then make any difference?

Does it give you the right to vilify the rich today?

Who died and made the progressive movement the conscious of this society? What gives this movement of intolerant people the right to decide what is reasonable wealth and what is excessive wealth?

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

What moral principle is that based on? Should the burden the local grocery store imposes on everyone be the same? Should rich people have to pay 5 times more for tomatoes than poor people? Should they pay 5 times more for gas?

Your principle is total bullshit. It's really the moral code of thieves. They take money from rich people because they can get more that way.

That's the only "principle" there is behind progressive taxation.

Let me give the person doing the insulting the negative attention he wants. Unlike dblack above who responded with civility, you choose to jump to being an asshole because you're an anonymous schmuck on the internet.

I think you're about to go on ignore. Not that you care, but perhaps someone else will read this and put you on their ignore too.

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

I think you're right, that this is the perspective of those arguing for progressive taxation, but I think it's wrong for a number of reasons.

First of all, taxation isn't a 'penalty'. Presumably we aren't being taxed because we've committed a crime, or done anything wrong. Taxes are just a matter of paying for government.

As such, the concept of equalizing the 'burden' (which will always be a completely subjective estimation) is silly. Would you recommend that all our other 'costs of living' be equalized in this same manner? Is it fair that someone who makes 30k a year should have to pay the same for a gallon of milk as someone who make ten times that much?

First, thanks for replying with civility.

In response, I think the word penalty isn't to be fixated on. It's burden. And yes, equalizing the burden IS an acceptable goal. You wouldnt go to the DMV and pay $30 for a parking ticket ...then take it lightly when your wife goes and has to pay $300, would you?

Your detour into costs of living is a completely different matter. Everyone in the country can't be artificially brought up to the same standard of living, but the burden on people CAN be the same. Private prices on consumer goods are part of the PRIVATE market of goods and services...a private market that is separate from governmental fees, taxes, and costs. The private right to contract between citizens (be it individuals or businesses) should not and legally cannot be obstructed by states or the federal government. Private people should have the liberty to conduct business and make agreements that THEY want to make.

On the other hand, the government has the ability to enact any form of taxation that the representative democracy decides is worth enacting. The FF's didn't say "No taxation EVER"...they said "No taxation without representation." (now whether our representatives are actually listening to us and doing what we want them to do is another matter) So if the people of the country say, "we find it a valid cause to enact progressive taxation to bring the burden of taxation into a scheme that burdens everyone equally, or some approximation thereof"...that's the way it goes.

It's been widely reported lately that the balance sheets of American corporations are the best they've ever been in decades. That they're sitting on pools of untapped cash reserves. But they aren't spending. I don't blame them. As a business owner, I'm not hiring and pulling back to be more efficient as well. I'm not adding to my lists of products and services right now because the calculus of risk vs reward is murky for what I'd planned to expand into. Trickle down, rich magnanimity doesn't work.

Right now the economic markets have to realize that despite the interconnectedness of the Fed Res system and credit, that private business strength is worth investing in, even if the government is ******* up. Once they do, the market will shoot off like a rocket (probably even a stochastic bubble)...but the media isn't helping.

 

[eflatminor]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

What you've said suggests that everything one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true. And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then? Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today? The answer is the economy was strong and healthy. It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed. In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history. Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth. The problem we have is with excessive wealth. The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American!

Well thank god we have you to tell us what constitutes excessive wealth. All hail the central planners for they know what is best for you! Thank you oh exulted one, thank you!

 

[Vanquish]

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare? I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.

What you've said suggests that everything one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true. And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then? Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today? The answer is the economy was strong and healthy. It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed. In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history. Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth. The problem we have is with excessive wealth. The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly un-American!

Well thank god we have you to tell us what constitutes excessive wealth. All hail the central planners for they know what is best for you! Thank you oh exulted one, thank you!

First, to the comment of "Why would anybody want to work and get rich..." Taxing people isn't going to stop them from wanting to get rich. It just doesn't happen. Getting handout might de-incentivize some people from ever existing on more than the minimum...but you aren't going to stop type-A personalities from trying to achieve and gather up wealth.

Now to the comment about "what contitutes excessive wealth." You realize that in our current legal system, under contract law, this has been done for decades? Contracts can be "unconscionable" either because the traded promise and resulting result are so dissimilar in value...or because the actual process that brought the contract was amazing unfair...a contract can be entirely voided. Is that some liberal construct?

There is a national conscience...and while it's not a bright line that's jumping up and down screaming "this is too much money!"...there is such thing as an unconscionably in business...and we need to recognize that!

I'm sure the concept of "it's possible to make too much money on a business deal" might seem foreign to some who think it's ok to treat anyone however they want within the law. But we're all connected in this country...it's not every man for himself. I think some conservatives in their hatred of free-loaders and lazy bums throw the baby out with the bathwater and think that because they're ok...it's ok not to help others through government.

 

[dblack]

In response, I think the word penalty isn't to be fixated on. It's burden. And yes, equalizing the burden IS an acceptable goal. You wouldnt go to the DMV and pay $30 for a parking ticket ...then take it lightly when your wife goes and has to pay $300, would you?

And yet, isn't this exactly what progressive taxation is all about - assessing state fees based on personal circumstance rather than the services rendered? The problem here, in my view, is that 'burden' is a completely subject estimation. You can't accurately assess how much of a burden a given tax payment will be for each and every individual without knowing all the details of their lives. And that gets to my principal beef with our tax code. Our government is abusing the power to tax by also using it as a tool for wealth redistribution. It's led to a tax code that is overly complex, overly intrusive, easily manipulated and ultimately more unfair than simpler alternatives.

This is why I proposed earlier that wealth redistribution should be handled through other channels. Doing so would be more transparent and provide us with more honest feedback from voters. It would also clean up our tax system, provide more stable revenue for the government, and more predictable costs for business. Businesses can absorb relatively high tax overhead if it's stable. What kills them is never knowing what their projected costs are going to be because the tax code is constantly blowing with the political wind.

Your detour into costs of living is a completely different matter. Everyone in the country can't be artificially brought up to the same standard of living, but the burden on people CAN be the same. Private prices on consumer goods are part of the PRIVATE market of goods and services...a private market that is separate from governmental fees, taxes, and costs. The private right to contract between citizens (be it individuals or businesses) should not and legally cannot be obstructed by states or the federal government. Private people should have the liberty to conduct business and make agreements that THEY want to make.

On the other hand, the government has the ability to enact any form of taxation that the representative democracy decides is worth enacting. The FF's didn't say "No taxation EVER"...they said "No taxation without representation." (now whether our representatives are actually listening to us and doing what we want them to do is another matter) So if the people of the country say, "we find it a valid cause to enact progressive taxation to bring the burden of taxation into a scheme that burdens everyone equally, or some approximation thereof"...that's the way it goes.

Whether it's constitutional or not is another discussion. Here we're focused (presumably) on the moral justification, and that's why I'm wondering why the efforts to 'equalize burden' apply only to the taxes we pay. If it's morally wrong to charge people with different wealth the same price for a service when it comes to government, why is it ok with everything else?

To be honest, all the defenses I've heard sound like convenient rationalizations. From what I've seen, the taxation power was merely a handy tool to implement the unrelated agenda of wealth redistribution. And I think it would do our nation a great boon to be honest about what we're doing and use an entirely different vehicle for addressing wealth disparity.

 

[Vanquish]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law. All equal as citizens. All equal in our responsibility to each other. It shouldnt be harder for one person to fulfill his or her obligation to be a citizen than it should be for another.

On the other hand, privately, we're not all equal to each other personally. You have free will, the ability to own private property, and can be self-determined. To contrast with government, you have free will not to be part of the social contract that is America, but if you do, then you're one of those who is equal under the law. Again, because wealth is relative, burden is relative.

I agree that our money doesn't belong to the government. It's ours that we earn. Tax cuts aren't benevolence from the government...it's the government returning as much of our own money as it can. There should be a constant pressure to do things smarter and cheaper. Morally, if we as a nation realize that helping the least of us helps the richest of us as well, and we enact programs like Medicare...it has to be paid.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law. All equal as citizens. All equal in our responsibility to each other. It shouldnt be harder for one person to fulfill his or her obligation to be a citizen than it should be for another.

On the other hand, privately, we're not all equal to each other personally. You have free will, the ability to own private property, and can be self-determined. To contrast with government, you have free will not to be part of the social contract that is America, but if you do, then you're one of those who is equal under the law. Again, because wealth is relative, burden is relative.

I agree that our money doesn't belong to the government. It's ours that we earn. Tax cuts aren't benevolence from the government...it's the government returning as much of our own money as it can. There should be a constant pressure to do things smarter and cheaper. Morally, if we as a nation realize that helping the least of us helps the richest of us as well, and we enact programs like Medicare...it has to be paid.

Good post except for maybe some fine tuning in the 'equal responsibility to each other' category. The sum of the definition of unalienable rights is that I have the right to act, believe, say, think, or promote whatever does not infringe on the rights of another or that requires no contribution or participation by another person.

Unalienable rights means I have no responsibility for another except by my choice. The choice may be arbitrary, spontaneous, or considered such as throwing a rope to a drowning man or helping out a homeless person on the street. The choice may be contractual either legally drawn or implied. If I choose to marry, I assume obligations to my spouse. If I have children, I assume responsibility for their welfare. If I employ people, I assume responsibility to see that work conditions are reasonably safe and adequate and that the people I employ are compensated as agreed. But it is always my choice to marry, to have kids, to hire people, etc.

Once anybody else can make such choices for me, without my consent, I have lost some of my unalienable rights. Which is why I am opposed to the Federal government providing any form of charity to anybody. I would like a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. As noble and righteous and compassionate as it sounds to use the people's money to help certain people out, the negatives produced far outweigh the benefits when it is the federal government doing it.

And in addition, Federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare, without exception have shown themselves to be less and less sustainable as the years pass. So as not break faith with those we have made dependent on such programs, we should begin now to slowly and incrementally return them to the States where they should have been all along.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Its immoral. People who don't earn the wealth do not deserve part of someone elses wealth unless he or she WORKS for it.