Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dblack]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.

That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.

 

[Vanquish]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.

That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.

I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity.

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect. The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "**** you, it's your own fault you're poor" society. There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.

That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.

I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity.

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect. The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "**** you, it's your own fault you're poor" society. There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.

The middle ground is a culture in which the people are mostly a religious and morally centered people who look after and take care of the people in their communities. The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution would not be effective and sustainable for people who did not share such character traits. That does not mean that every person has to be religious or share the same values as his fellows, but if most are not that way, the Constitution won't work. The effective society may assign some duties to the state, some to local government, but it is the will of the people and not those in government that prevails.

The alternative is a culture in which some will say I've got mine and the rest can go to hell, or a culture in which politicians can buy votes, power, prestige, and feather their own nests by forcing some Americans to serve others. It becomes a 'lets be noble, magnanimous, and charitable with YOUR money', but unfortunately it is the gathering and distribution of the money that becomes the goal and not whether people are actually helped.

 

[Vanquish]

I agree with a lot of what you've said. Washington has become a culture of wasteful spending with political payoffs - not efficient and not effective enough.

I also agree that the Constitution was built on the understanding that people would have common religious values. I, myself, am an atheist, but realize that the FF expected a moral core to the citizenry that would be the bedrock of the nation. They had atheists in their time too, but still expected even the atheists to have a moral code.

We've reached a point in this country where only the extreme voices get heard. If you're not extreme then you're boring. Well, I'm here to tell you...government work is supposed to be boring. It's not fun. It's not sexy. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Not every decision is 100% perfect, nor does compromise mean you've given in to weakness.

I'm not sure who will be president next, but good f'ng luck. I'd like to think that after Obama has been vilified so much that liberals wouldn't do what they've complained about with conservatives should a conservative win the office. I remember how they treated Bush and know it'll be the same. Both sides are bat-shit crazy.

I do have to say, if the government doesn't help, I don't see the current wave of "**** you, you lazy bums" sentiment fostering a level of compassion on a local level around this fine nation. That's gone. See ya. Churches are still doing their thing, along with the Red Cross, Salvation Army and the like. But if you simply dropped a lot of the support the federal government gives, the nation would suffer an even LARGER freefall.

That's not to say we don't need to cut back...we have to cut back. But it's not as easy as the scorched Earth policy some conservatives are promoting. "It Aint in the Constitution!!" ain't gonna cut it.

 

[hipeter924]

In an ideal world we wouldn't need social welfare, everyone would donate enough to charity to take the burden, there would be very low unemployment with only the heavily disabled or mentally ill not working. We don't have that world, which is why we will have welfare. That and compassion is at an all time low, education and maybe more ethics in society would help, but at the same time everyone that works for a living is sick of people on benefits not trying to find work; and thus pushing up the tax bill.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own. There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill. Somebody couldn't afford an operation? The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in. Or held a benefit.

The next town over was half destroyed by a tornado? People for miles around came to help dig out, clear debris, rebuild, offer housing to the temporarily homeless. The 'permanently' homeless were called hobos back then. And they expected nothing for free but were more than willing to perform what odd jobs they could for a supply of food or shelter from the winter storm in the barn. And the homeowners and local businesses always provided that.

Famine in Africa? Everybody held fund drives, took up collections, and the aid poured into the striken areas through such organizations as Church World Service and World Vision that were allowed to enter areas that no government officials could.

Once the federal government started using our tax money for all these things though, our little local canned food drive looked puny in the face of government tens of thousands, then millioms, then billions of dollars of aid. Soon few people were no longer making the effort.

But the problem with government aid is that it is from government to government rather than from the people to the people. And most of those government siphon off most of it for their own purposes and most of the people who need it never see any benefit from it.

The problem with federal government charity, among other things, is that every dollar confiscated in taxes then passes through layer after layer of bureaucracy, each siphoning off their 'expenses', so that only a fraction of it gets to somebody who really needs it. If that. When it is suggested that something be cut by a billion dollars or so, you aren't taking much away from the needy. You're taking a whole bunch away from the bureaucracy however, and that's why they scream like stuck pigs.

As Vanquish said, there is a better way. There just has to be.

 

[ShackledNation]

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.

That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.

I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity.

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect. The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "**** you, it's your own fault you're poor" society. There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.

The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that taxation takes a percentage of income, not a fixed amount, from everyone. So if the tax rate were 20%, the prince making 100,000 would pay $20,000 and the pauper making $1,000 would be taxed $200. Richer people will pay higher numerical amounts under a flat tax. The percentage of income, however, will be the same.

It is also important to think about expenses. The expenses of the prince who may own a business and hire workers will be far higher than the expenses of the pauper. His money is not hiding under a mattress. Much of the money is also invested, allowing production to expand, thus lowering prices and helping the poor. Giving the poor money from government decreases the amount of resources available to grow the economy. The poor will likely not invest the money, but spend it on consumer goods. This will result in a focus on a consumer economy, rather than an economy where investments are made in capital to promote long term growth.

Another thing to think about is how much the prince gives back to society. Say the prince hires many workers, and although he makes a large income his actual profits after paying the costs of production are only slightly higher than the pauper. If he were taxed at a higher rate, the "burden" would be higher on him than the pauper, and he may even have to lay off workers.

It is not as simple as rich people have a lighter burden and poor have a heavy burden, so we have to equalize burdens. Every individual seeks to lessen his or her burden. If in doing so the burden is replaced by taxation, it creates a very hopeless and absurd situation in which people are never allowed to reap the benefits of being successful.

 

[Maple]

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchill

What you state as to be a moral cause is actually a failed system, it's failing now right before your eyes in London, Greece, soon to be Spain and Italy.

When you take from the producers to give to the non-producers there is no reason for the producers to produce as you have given them a life style that is similar to the non-producer.

In other words why would you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to get a great education, you go to work, work your tail off, and the government comes in and takes so much of your money to give to someone who has no ambition to work and would rather sit home and be on welfare. Then you live in the same style of home, a dump, you have no more money than the guy who did nothing. Where is the incentive to work hard. There is none- hard work- is negated.

This used to be a free market society where the people who work hard, spend, save and invest their money so others have the opportunity to do the same, because it's the hard working person through spending, saving and investing that creates job opportunities for others in the private sector. They create a demand for products and services and business needs to hire people to keep up with the demand.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it was Patrick Henry who said the purpose of the Constitution was not to restrain the people but to restrain the government. When the government takes more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, it will take freedom and rights from the people.

From Thomas Jefferson's first inaugeral address:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

Every American with income should contribute a percentage to support the necessary functions of government and the government should be doing nothing that is not necessary for government to do. How much income each American has is irrelevant to this concept but the government should treat every American equally with all other Americans. Do that and the debt and deficit crisis we now have will go away.

 

[Vanquish]

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchill

What you state as to be a moral cause is actually a failed system, it's failing now right before your eyes in London, Greece, soon to be Spain and Italy.

When you take from the producers to give to the non-producers there is no reason for the producers to produce as you have given them a life style that is similar to the non-producer.

In other words why would you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to get a great education, you go to work, work your tail off, and the government comes in and takes so much of your money to give to someone who has no ambition to work and would rather sit home and be on welfare. Then you live in the same style of home, a dump, you have no more money than the guy who did nothing. Where is the incentive to work hard. There is none- hard work- is negated.

This used to be a free market society where the people who work hard, spend, save and invest their money so others have the opportunity to do the same, because it's the hard working person through spending, saving and investing that creates job opportunities for others in the private sector. They create a demand for products and services and business needs to hire people to keep up with the demand.

First of all, there is no such thing as a free market. For as long as religions and governments have controlled commerce that term has been invalid.

Second, this idealized notion of some better time when everyone pulled their weight...and if only we could get rid of the lazy bums is so simplistic and false that I don't know where to begin. There are SOOOOO many other ways to end up poor other than being lazy I could type for a year. Such a large contingent of conservatives thinks that if we just got the welfare cheats and lazy bums gone, the country would go back to the "good ole days" ...and that couldn't be farther from the truth. To be fair, a large contingent of liberals wants to spend too much on social engineering programs with a naive eye towards the concept of incentives.

Welfare cheats and the amount of people ON welfare isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be. Not even close. Sorry to shine a light on the monster under the bed.

And you haven't even gone into farm subsidies and corporate welfare. Usually it's the people who complain about "lazy bums" who don't mind corporations using their leverage to "smartly find ways around taxes." That type also thinks that trickle down economics work, despite the fact that we've had 1.1 Trillion (with a T) in tax cuts since 2008 and it hasn't helped.

Your comment about "why work if it gets taxed so much" is flawed logic. No matter how much you get taxed there will always be type-a people who want to gather wealth and accomplish achievements. That's the kind of person I am...and my wife..and most of our family. And most of the people I surround myself with.

I do believe the opposite of that assertion - that there are some people who will learn to live on the bare minimum so they don't HAVE to work.

That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.

I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity.

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect. The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "**** you, it's your own fault you're poor" society. There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.

The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that taxation takes a percentage of income, not a fixed amount, from everyone. So if the tax rate were 20%, the prince making 100,000 would pay $20,000 and the pauper making $1,000 would be taxed $200. Richer people will pay higher numerical amounts under a flat tax. The percentage of income, however, will be the same.

It is also important to think about expenses. The expenses of the prince who may own a business and hire workers will be far higher than the expenses of the pauper. His money is not hiding under a mattress. Much of the money is also invested, allowing production to expand, thus lowering prices and helping the poor. Giving the poor money from government decreases the amount of resources available to grow the economy. The poor will likely not invest the money, but spend it on consumer goods. This will result in a focus on a consumer economy, rather than an economy where investments are made in capital to promote long term growth.

Another thing to think about is how much the prince gives back to society. Say the prince hires many workers, and although he makes a large income his actual profits after paying the costs of production are only slightly higher than the pauper. If he were taxed at a higher rate, the "burden" would be higher on him than the pauper, and he may even have to lay off workers.

It is not as simple as rich people have a lighter burden and poor have a heavy burden, so we have to equalize burdens. Every individual seeks to lessen his or her burden. If in doing so the burden is replaced by taxation, it creates a very hopeless and absurd situation in which people are never allowed to reap the benefits of being successful.

While I definitely agree with your refinement of the idea of "actual income" through basic cost accounting (gross income - expenses etc. etc.), we can all agree to a formula for income for both rich and poor so that we're comparing apples to apples.

If you're making a million dollars and have two million in expenses (being simplistic of course), you're right...that's a snapshot of more money going out than going in. But financials taken on a calendar also don't take into account cash flow (the scheduling of expenses for maximum usefulness).

Investments by the rich themselves aren't always long term and are often short term consumer spending. Buying assets that depreciate is a perfect example.

And to say that investments help the poor is a really blanket statement. Perhaps a company buys a new machine that replaces a person's job and the poor guy gets fired (computer, welding robot etc.).

What it boils down to, for me, is that private charity fails to do enough by itself. If the EPA were gone tomorrow and the portion of the budget for protecting wildlife were given back to the people of the USA, would private groups rise up and do the same job? Highly doubtful. Even further, would the private groups have the same authority to police companies and individuals? Of course not.

We can't spend into oblivion...and cuts in spending ought to be job #1...but the country isn't going to get better if the poorest people are asked to do more than those who are more affluent...while the people with money and power use their advantages to do less and less.

The government can't make sure that everyone is equally wealthy...nor should it try to. But there's a basic standard of living that, if everyone were able to rise to, the affluent would benefit as well. We're all connected.

 

[Foxfyre]

Respectfully disagreeing with Vanguish that there is no such thing as a free market. There most certainly is even when tempered with regulation to protect unalienable rights.

That everybody should aspire to an X standard of living is a no brainer, but when that translates to the Marxist concept that the government should bring down the rich and greedy to more equalize wealth, and that will accomplish that X standard of living for everybody, you soon have a skewed society in which most will expect to be provided for whether or not they produce anything for society.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous.

Benjamin Franklin--On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[6] (29 November 1766)

I used that Ben Franklin quotation as my sig line for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

I further my argument for free trade as the solution rather than government management using this excellent essay by Walter Williams, one of my favorite economists:

Excerpt:

The idea that even the brightest person or group of bright people, much less the U.S. Congress, can wisely manage an economy has to be the height of arrogance and conceit. Why? It is impossible for anyone to possess the knowledge that would be necessary for such an undertaking. At the risk of boring you, let's go through a small example that proves such knowledge is impossible. . . . .

. . . .The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items -- canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk -- people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.". . . .

Economic Miracle

 

[realife]

Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own. There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill. Somebody couldn't afford an operation? The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in. Or held a benefit.

The next town over was half destroyed by a tornado? People for miles around came to help dig out, clear debris, rebuild, offer housing to the temporarily homeless. The 'permanently' homeless were called hobos back then. And they expected nothing for free but were more than willing to perform what odd jobs they could for a supply of food or shelter from the winter storm in the barn. And the homeowners and local businesses always provided that.

Famine in Africa? Everybody held fund drives, took up collections, and the aid poured into the striken areas through such organizations as Church World Service and World Vision that were allowed to enter areas that no government officials could.

Once the federal government started using our tax money for all these things though, our little local canned food drive looked puny in the face of government tens of thousands, then millioms, then billions of dollars of aid. Soon few people were no longer making the effort.

But the problem with government aid is that it is from government to government rather than from the people to the people. And most of those government siphon off most of it for their own purposes and most of the people who need it never see any benefit from it.

The problem with federal government charity, among other things, is that every dollar confiscated in taxes then passes through layer after layer of bureaucracy, each siphoning off their 'expenses', so that only a fraction of it gets to somebody who really needs it. If that. When it is suggested that something be cut by a billion dollars or so, you aren't taking much away from the needy. You're taking a whole bunch away from the bureaucracy however, and that's why they scream like stuck pigs.

As Vanquish said, there is a better way. There just has to be.

Very Well said , you hit it right on the head. And i really beleive that most would have no problem giving, but what so frustrating is exaclty what you describe. And this is what has to change.

 

[jgarden]

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery."
- Winston Churchill

Churchill's quote could also apply to the current situation in Britain's urban slums where the youth who have lost hope in a better future.

We've already had graphic examples (Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, Syria) of what happens when a nation's wealth is controlled by a few "HAVES," while an increasing number of "HAVE NOTS" are no longer content to "play by the old rules!"

 

[ShackledNation]

I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity.

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect. The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "**** you, it's your own fault you're poor" society. There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.

The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that taxation takes a percentage of income, not a fixed amount, from everyone. So if the tax rate were 20%, the prince making 100,000 would pay $20,000 and the pauper making $1,000 would be taxed $200. Richer people will pay higher numerical amounts under a flat tax. The percentage of income, however, will be the same.

It is also important to think about expenses. The expenses of the prince who may own a business and hire workers will be far higher than the expenses of the pauper. His money is not hiding under a mattress. Much of the money is also invested, allowing production to expand, thus lowering prices and helping the poor. Giving the poor money from government decreases the amount of resources available to grow the economy. The poor will likely not invest the money, but spend it on consumer goods. This will result in a focus on a consumer economy, rather than an economy where investments are made in capital to promote long term growth.

Another thing to think about is how much the prince gives back to society. Say the prince hires many workers, and although he makes a large income his actual profits after paying the costs of production are only slightly higher than the pauper. If he were taxed at a higher rate, the "burden" would be higher on him than the pauper, and he may even have to lay off workers.

It is not as simple as rich people have a lighter burden and poor have a heavy burden, so we have to equalize burdens. Every individual seeks to lessen his or her burden. If in doing so the burden is replaced by taxation, it creates a very hopeless and absurd situation in which people are never allowed to reap the benefits of being successful.

While I definitely agree with your refinement of the idea of "actual income" through basic cost accounting (gross income - expenses etc. etc.), we can all agree to a formula for income for both rich and poor so that we're comparing apples to apples.

If you're making a million dollars and have two million in expenses (being simplistic of course), you're right...that's a snapshot of more money going out than going in. But financials taken on a calendar also don't take into account cash flow (the scheduling of expenses for maximum usefulness).

Investments by the rich themselves aren't always long term and are often short term consumer spending. Buying assets that depreciate is a perfect example.

And to say that investments help the poor is a really blanket statement. Perhaps a company buys a new machine that replaces a person's job and the poor guy gets fired (computer, welding robot etc.).

What it boils down to, for me, is that private charity fails to do enough by itself. If the EPA were gone tomorrow and the portion of the budget for protecting wildlife were given back to the people of the USA, would private groups rise up and do the same job? Highly doubtful. Even further, would the private groups have the same authority to police companies and individuals? Of course not.

We can't spend into oblivion...and cuts in spending ought to be job #1...but the country isn't going to get better if the poorest people are asked to do more than those who are more affluent...while the people with money and power use their advantages to do less and less.

The government can't make sure that everyone is equally wealthy...nor should it try to. But there's a basic standard of living that, if everyone were able to rise to, the affluent would benefit as well. We're all connected.

Investments finance economic production. Increased production results in lower prices and higher real wages. It may be a blanket statement, but it holds true.

Also, you referenced jobs being replaced by machines. It is incorrect to believe that automation leads to unemployment. To do so is to argue increased efficiency leads to unemployment. It is to argue more production is a bad thing. For example, when the tractor was invented far less workers were needed to plow fields. When the train was created, less people were needed to transport other people. In fact, judging by historical technological advancement, we should all be unemployed right now. But we are not. Automation frees up resources to be used to pursue other sectors. Temporary unemployment, of course, will result. But this type of employment is not a bad thing. For with more workers available, a company can produce something new that it could not have produced before. If people were all still plowing the fields because they feared the tractor would create unemployment, cars, computers, and many other goods would not exist because there would be no resources available to produce them.

Working less but producing the same amount of goods or more is the goal of production. Work is a means, not an ends in itself. For example, in 1907 a new car cost 2 years of labor. Today, a new car costs 8 months of labor, and the car has so many other technologies that it is a miracle in itself. It not only costs less labor to produce, but it is of an infinitely higher quality.

The middle class was not created by government. It was not created thanks to welfare and minimum wage. The middle class resulted because government was largely out of the free market. The poor were able to become wealthier. Private charity is plenty sufficient. The poor will not be asked to do more than anyone else. And the EPA is not private charity, and it has been largely disastrous.

You cannot create wealth by forcefully redistributing wealth. It has never worked, and it will never work.

 

[ShackledNation]

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery."
- Winston Churchill

Churchill's quote could also apply to the current situation in Britain's urban slums with youth who have lost all hope in a better future.

We've already had graphic examples (Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, Syria) recently of what happens when a nation's wealth is placed in a few hands and large segments of society become totally alienated.

And what put wealth in a few hands and alienated segments of society? Government.

 

[dblack]

I guess what I've never really got about efforts to redistribute wealth, is that they seem to be based on an assumption that something was wrong with the way it was distributed in the first place. If that's the case, then we should fix the root cause, rather than engaging in all these remedial efforts after the fact.

So, that's my question: What's wrong with the system the leads to an unfair distribution of wealth, and how can we change that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own. There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill. Somebody couldn't afford an operation? The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in. Or held a benefit.

The next town over was half destroyed by a tornado? People for miles around came to help dig out, clear debris, rebuild, offer housing to the temporarily homeless. The 'permanently' homeless were called hobos back then. And they expected nothing for free but were more than willing to perform what odd jobs they could for a supply of food or shelter from the winter storm in the barn. And the homeowners and local businesses always provided that.

Famine in Africa? Everybody held fund drives, took up collections, and the aid poured into the striken areas through such organizations as Church World Service and World Vision that were allowed to enter areas that no government officials could.

Once the federal government started using our tax money for all these things though, our little local canned food drive looked puny in the face of government tens of thousands, then millioms, then billions of dollars of aid. Soon few people were no longer making the effort.

But the problem with government aid is that it is from government to government rather than from the people to the people. And most of those government siphon off most of it for their own purposes and most of the people who need it never see any benefit from it.

The problem with federal government charity, among other things, is that every dollar confiscated in taxes then passes through layer after layer of bureaucracy, each siphoning off their 'expenses', so that only a fraction of it gets to somebody who really needs it. If that. When it is suggested that something be cut by a billion dollars or so, you aren't taking much away from the needy. You're taking a whole bunch away from the bureaucracy however, and that's why they scream like stuck pigs.

As Vanquish said, there is a better way. There just has to be.

Very Well said , you hit it right on the head. And i really beleive that most would have no problem giving, but what so frustrating is exaclty what you describe. And this is what has to change.

Americans have long been the most generous of all people. And I think once the federal government resumes its constitutional authority instead of trying to appear to be all things to all people, that individual spirit of generosity and caring will rise again.

 

[Wiseacre]

When the gov't gets into the business of redistributing wealth, they invite fraud, waste, and abuse into the system. Aside from the inefficiencies, they pick winners and losers usually based on political reasons and the decisions they make are usually short term temporary things that are ephemeral in nature with no permanent improvement in the recipient's situation. Resentment is fostered between those who benefited and those who didn't, and an already divided country gets more divisive. Iy may be good politics that get's you re-elected, bad it's bad for the country.

 

[Vanquish]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits. Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

It's interesting that someone brought up the coalescence of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Do you realize that the Founding Fathers didn't want that? *gasp* How can he say that??? He doesn't know that! They were all wealthy landowners!

Ahh...funny you should bring up property. The Founding Fathers wrote into the law of property two brilliant things. First of all there's a little legal principle called The Rule of Perpetuity. Basically the FF didn't want old families amassing more and more wealth and control over land, so they created property laws that, while still allowing property to be alienable (an ownership term, btw), stopped just such a coalescence of wealth. The second thing they did was set up a system where if you die without a will...your property goes to THE STATE! (yes it's the individual state and not the federal gov't...but that's splitting hairs).

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.