Wealth Redistribution

[boedicca]

The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.

The Unwealthy didn't.

Ironically, ants are communists....

Just Sayin'

That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.

 

[Samson]

The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.

The Unwealthy didn't.

Ironically, ants are communists....

Just Sayin'

That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.

Nonetheless, Aesop would approve.

 

[midcan5]

A few replies to replies.

The ad homs and name calling always show the empty heads and partisan wackos, occasionally a reply helps me clarify my own arguments so all is good.

Oddball, no one is talking about communism except you. You seriously need to consider pavlovian remediation treatment. Good luck.


RadiomanATL, Please don't get lost in the Amazon, the wingnuts will miss your participation in the wingnut circle jerk. I've heard you're pivot man, and your loss would surely confuse the other circle jerks.


Foxfyre, 3) Something else - answer is already in OP and I'll elucidate more later.


Wiseacre, everyone pays taxes unless they live on air and in a rent free cave. Everything you purchase is taxed, including your travel. Home foreclosure is a great example of poor social organization, faulty regulation, and greed, from all parties involved.

Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless. No one creates wealth outside of society. It would have no meaning as who would accept it as being real thing.

Actually an argument can be made that charitable work consists of taxes as we willingly pay them to support the various aspects of society we deem important. Welfare for all can then be both personal charity and a positive use of taxes. This is an argument Jeremy Waldron makes.

Rights are always an interesting concept, I say every human being (and even animal) possesses certain rights simply because they exist as conscious beings. If welfare supports and helps a child, a family, or a person then their rights as conscious beings are being acknowledged. Welfare is not wealth by the way. No Cadillac mom ever existed.

You obviously know few wealthy people, most are born or marry into it. Some inherit it, a few have skills that supply it. They do nothing that another could not do given a similar set of circumstances. Let me link this again. " http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm and http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html " And again without the technology, support systems, infrastructure and the demand and volume sales of a society, wealth would not exist. So the Serf analogy holds.

Incentives? Why do you guys like words like demonize? Helps hide the argument behind non-answer replies? Carlin said it best, "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."


Quantum Windbag, You've never read your posts?

For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context, building a hundred shelters would equate to a hundred shelters. Where is the wealth without people? Imagine a native who has lived alone and upon meeting QW is told of his great wealth. LOL See above reply to Wiseacre too.

Mother Theresa used society's wealth to help others, good for her, at least in this instance. Bill Gates crushed more companies than most corporations do and the moral implications only became a consideration after he had so much, he felt secure enough to use some for a good purpose. Buffett has a conscience, may always have had one. My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences. While Gates and Microsoft demonstrate the lack of morals, I realize the point is complex.

We all see what we want to see but a few consider whether the view makes sense. We see things through the mirror which is each of us.

If you know anyone who runs a business that often deals in cash ask them that question, oh, and discuss the morality too if you'd like to lose friends. Curiously today we even pay for Bernie Madoff's care so you have your answer.

You don't know that I am not wealthy and consider that as a liberal I may consider other things more important. I don't brag online. But I do hobnob with lots of rich people because ..... they do not create jobs - at least in the sense in which the argument is made.

I'll make sure the parachute is packed correctly.

No one creates in a vacuum. If the book sells take a guess who buys it and how the author makes millions? From where? If a man writes the great American novel on an island, and no one is there, is it read. Educators deserve more pay, education should be free for most education. I've stated this often, I married an educator.

You have a thought, oh sorry, now I'm stooping to your level. Actually you are giving your thoughts right here for free, and they are all too common among conservatives and libertarians types. Tiring actually. Rand and Friedman dominate your responses. Corporate propaganda has rendered you all brain dead, I say that in the nicest way.


PS I'll need to see if other comments clarify or obfuscate.

 

[midcan5]

Wow. Such intelectual lazyiness and plagerism. You just post other people opinions and ask me to reply to them. I will not accept a link as an answer and I will not entertain someone so lazy that they cant defend their own positions. What kind of crap is this? Say what you will about rand. I just cited her definition of morality to back up my other comparison of that same definition located in the declaration of independence. They both say the same thing. Yet you fail to understand it huh?

You can't be serious, you post Youtubes on morality that say nothing and your replies are the stuff of an Ayn Rand robot. Plagiarism? Where?

A video from TED or Edge is a hell of lot more intelligent than the Galt silliness you presented as an answer. Haidt's piece answers your question but I'll stick with morality as comfortable for most people. Only later does the moral enter the picture. The Armstrong piece on 60 Minutes tonight demonstrated that as fact again.

And I posted links to several of my own pieces. Give an argument that counters the points not Ayn Rand talking points from her crap propaganda pretending to be literature. I think this stuff is over most people's heads here, the replies are the usual excuses for the status quo. I'll look for a real counter, but no time tonight. You need to learn a bit before coming back with another Atlas shrugging.

 

[Oddball]

A few replies to replies.

The ad homs and name calling always show the empty heads and partisan wackos, occasionally a reply helps me clarify my own arguments so all is good.

Oddball, no one is talking about communism except you. You seriously need to consider pavlovian remediation treatment. Good luck.

Someone here is talking about communism and it's you, tovarich.

You're a Randian antagonist wet dream come to life....You're attempting --via bloviating text walls, marginally (if at all) relevant quotes of others and links to your Marxist's book of the week club-- to prove that all creations of the industrious simultaneously belong to everybody and nobody, by way of the mythical strawman of "society".

You're a stereotype come to life, of the wormy little looters who rationalized the expropriation and embellishment-cum-defilement of Howard Roark's architectural drawings, taken straight off the pages of "The Fountainhead".

Little wonder you sneer at Rand, given that she had your archetype nailed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless. No one creates wealth outside of society. It would have no meaning as who would accept it as being real thing.

Wealth is not created or enforced by society, it works the other way around.

Actually an argument can be made that charitable work consists of taxes as we willingly pay them to support the various aspects of society we deem important. Welfare for all can then be both personal charity and a positive use of taxes. This is an argument Jeremy Waldron makes.

An argument can be made that spinning clockwise makes you dizzier than spinning counter clockwise, doesn't make it true. Taxes support the government, charity work only supports the government if you volunteer for them. How many people do that?

Rights are always an interesting concept, I say every human being (and even animal) possesses certain rights simply because they exist as conscious beings. If welfare supports and helps a child, a family, or a person then their rights as conscious beings are being acknowledged. Welfare is not wealth by the way. No Cadillac mom ever existed.

Are you saying unconscious people have no rights? If so, I am pretty sure most people would disagree with you about that one.

You obviously know few wealthy people, most are born or marry into it. Some inherit it, a few have skills that supply it. They do nothing that another could not do given a similar set of circumstances. Let me link this again. " The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax " And again without the technology, support systems, infrastructure and the demand and volume sales of a society, wealth would not exist. So the Serf analogy holds.

How do you think society supports wealth?

Incentives? Why do you guys like words like demonize? Helps hide the argument behind non-answer replies? Carlin said it best, "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

Can you show me a list of conservatives that actually say that, or do you think quoting a comedian is a trump card?

Quantum Windbag, You've never read your posts?

Quite often.

Do you?

For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context, building a hundred shelters would equate to a hundred shelters. Where is the wealth without people? Imagine a native who has lived alone and upon meeting QW is told of his great wealth. LOL See above reply to Wiseacre too.

Wealth is not a concept.

Why does a man need social/economic context to have meaning? Is a man from Mexico defined as being less than one from France? I think that native would rather meet someone like me who looks at him as an individual and admires his accomplishments than one like you who thinks that he is worthless because he does not live in New York.

Mother Theresa used society's wealth to help others, good for her, at least in this instance. Bill Gates crushed more companies than most corporations do and the moral implications only became a consideration after he had so much, he felt secure enough to use some for a good purpose. Buffett has a conscience, may always have had one. My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences. While Gates and Microsoft demonstrate the lack of morals, I realize the point is complex.

Wealth is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. What you do with it is what matters, and Gates is using his to help people. You are the one that is arguing that wealthy people are inherently immoral because of their wealth and that none of them ever use it to help others unless government forces them to. Why can't you simply admit it when you are wrong, it will not kill you.

We all see what we want to see but a few consider whether the view makes sense. We see things through the mirror which is each of us.

And some of us, like you, refuse to admit that what they see makes no sense even when shown the truth.

If you know anyone who runs a business that often deals in cash ask them that question, oh, and discuss the morality too if you'd like to lose friends. Curiously today we even pay for Bernie Madoff's care so you have your answer.

Ask them what question?

You don't know that I am not wealthy and consider that as a liberal I may consider other things more important. I don't brag online. But I do hobnob with lots of rich people because ..... they do not create jobs - at least in the sense in which the argument is made.

You don't brag online? When do you plan to start implementing that policy?

You hang around with rich people because they do not create jobs? Does that make sense, even to you?

No one creates in a vacuum. If the book sells take a guess who buys it and how the author makes millions? From where? If a man writes the great American novel on an island, and no one is there, is it read. Educators deserve more pay, education should be free for most education. I've stated this often, I married an educator.

Teachers deserve more pay, but people who discover or write the stuff teachers teach should be forced to subsist on less than them. Why do you think that makes sense?

You have a thought, oh sorry, now I'm stooping to your level. Actually you are giving your thoughts right here for free, and they are all too common among conservatives and libertarians types. Tiring actually. Rand and Friedman dominate your responses. Corporate propaganda has rendered you all brain dead, I say that in the nicest way.

You are the idiot that posted that intellectual property belongs to society.

PS I'll need to see if other comments clarify or obfuscate.

You will obfuscate.

 

[Oddball]

Midcan't refuses to recognize that his "society" strawman wouldn't exist in the absence of consenting adults, freely exchanging perceived value for perceived value.

In his fucked up communistic world, the only valid arbiters of value are unaccountable politicians, educrats and bureaucrats, who are in turn completely insulated from the negative externalities of their authoritarianism, under the umbrella of pre-supposed good intentions.

The litany of their utter failures are of no consequence, as they have no *ahem* "skin in the game".

 

[expat_panama]

For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context...

Wealth is not a concept. Why does a man need social/economic context to have meaning? ...

Because words mean things. Sure, it's ok if you talk to yourself (though it's unhealthy if you get mad at yourself when you lose arguments and start hitting). We have to agree on a definition if we're talking together so what say we use one from Collins English Dictionary:

wealth [wɛlθ] n

1. (Economics) a large amount of money and valuable material possessions
2. (Economics) the state of being rich
3. a great profusion a wealth of gifts
4. (Economics) Economics all goods and services with monetary, exchangeable, or productive value​

Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless...

Wealth is not created or enforced by society, it works the other way around...

'Exchange' requires more than one person. Individuals can only create wealth in a group. OK, you can have 'spiritual wealth' all by yourself but let's try and stick with one definition here.

My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences...

Wealth is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. What you do with it is what matters...

--and it only matters because we are moral, so now let's list our shared values --America's core values found on our money:

In God We Trust (aka do good or do what's right)
Liberty (not animal-like anarchy but human freedom to do Good)
E Pluribus Unum (aka unity through diversity)
​

The State is needed to provide and guard an environment where businesses can prosper and support the State. Each needs the other. In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and the elimination the extremes of wealth and poverty --because extremes polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wealth is something other people have after they've exploited everyone else, and is thus prime for being taxed for the public good.
-B.Hussein Obama.

 

[editec]

Ironically, ants are communists....

Just Sayin'

That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.

Nonetheless, Aesop would approve.

How many slaves did he own?

Oh that's right...he WAS a slave...until he was freed by his Massa.

All this asumming of course, he wasn't entirely a fiction.

 

[logical4u]

A few replies to replies.

The ad homs and name calling always show the empty heads and partisan wackos, occasionally a reply helps me clarify my own arguments so all is good.

Oddball, no one is talking about communism except you. You seriously need to consider pavlovian remediation treatment. Good luck.


RadiomanATL, Please don't get lost in the Amazon, the wingnuts will miss your participation in the wingnut circle jerk. I've heard you're pivot man, and your loss would surely confuse the other circle jerks.


Foxfyre, 3) Something else - answer is already in OP and I'll elucidate more later.


Wiseacre, everyone pays taxes unless they live on air and in a rent free cave. Everything you purchase is taxed, including your travel. Home foreclosure is a great example of poor social organization, faulty regulation, and greed, from all parties involved.

Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless. No one creates wealth outside of society. It would have no meaning as who would accept it as being real thing.

Actually an argument can be made that charitable work consists of taxes as we willingly pay them to support the various aspects of society we deem important. Welfare for all can then be both personal charity and a positive use of taxes. This is an argument Jeremy Waldron makes.

Rights are always an interesting concept, I say every human being (and even animal) possesses certain rights simply because they exist as conscious beings. If welfare supports and helps a child, a family, or a person then their rights as conscious beings are being acknowledged. Welfare is not wealth by the way. No Cadillac mom ever existed.

You obviously know few wealthy people, most are born or marry into it. Some inherit it, a few have skills that supply it. They do nothing that another could not do given a similar set of circumstances. Let me link this again. " The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax " And again without the technology, support systems, infrastructure and the demand and volume sales of a society, wealth would not exist. So the Serf analogy holds.

Incentives? Why do you guys like words like demonize? Helps hide the argument behind non-answer replies? Carlin said it best, "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."


Quantum Windbag, You've never read your posts?

For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context, building a hundred shelters would equate to a hundred shelters. Where is the wealth without people? Imagine a native who has lived alone and upon meeting QW is told of his great wealth. LOL See above reply to Wiseacre too.

Mother Theresa used society's wealth to help others, good for her, at least in this instance. Bill Gates crushed more companies than most corporations do and the moral implications only became a consideration after he had so much, he felt secure enough to use some for a good purpose. Buffett has a conscience, may always have had one. My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences. While Gates and Microsoft demonstrate the lack of morals, I realize the point is complex.

We all see what we want to see but a few consider whether the view makes sense. We see things through the mirror which is each of us.

If you know anyone who runs a business that often deals in cash ask them that question, oh, and discuss the morality too if you'd like to lose friends. Curiously today we even pay for Bernie Madoff's care so you have your answer.

You don't know that I am not wealthy and consider that as a liberal I may consider other things more important. I don't brag online. But I do hobnob with lots of rich people because ..... they do not create jobs - at least in the sense in which the argument is made.

I'll make sure the parachute is packed correctly.

No one creates in a vacuum. If the book sells take a guess who buys it and how the author makes millions? From where? If a man writes the great American novel on an island, and no one is there, is it read. Educators deserve more pay, education should be free for most education. I've stated this often, I married an educator.

You have a thought, oh sorry, now I'm stooping to your level. Actually you are giving your thoughts right here for free, and they are all too common among conservatives and libertarians types. Tiring actually. Rand and Friedman dominate your responses. Corporate propaganda has rendered you all brain dead, I say that in the nicest way.


PS I'll need to see if other comments clarify or obfuscate.

Quote: Originally Posted by midcan5
This is a response to the question asked here. Morality of Wealth Redistribution

Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.

Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.

People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society much.

Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.

Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.

The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.

Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to serve the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.

Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a non-starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.



Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine


How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax


"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market
It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.


Another thing: do you have some evidence that most wealthy were "born into it" or "inherited" it?
This country has enabled more people to become millionaires:
Income and Wealth Inequality
Approximate number of millionaires and billionaires in the U.S., 1978-19888
Year Millionaires Decamillionaires Centamillionaires Billionaires
1978 450,000 1
1979 519,000
1980 574,000 ?
1981 638,000 ?
1982 38,885 400 13
1983 500 15
1984 600 12
1985 832,000 700 13
1986 900 26
1987 1,239,000 81,816 1,200 49
1988 1,500,000 100,000 1,200 51
Percent Increase of Combined Salaries by Income Bracket, unadjusted for inflation (1980s)
Income Bracket Percent Increase
$20,000 - 50,000 44%
200,000 - 1 million 697
Over $1 million 2,184


Millionaire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In 2009 there were about 3,000,000 millionaires in the USA or about 1% of the population. Maybe only 1% of the population uses enough self-discipline and focus to "achieve" wealth (kind of like when I was a kid and "knew" that I could be a world class athlete if only I was willing to dedicate about 10 hours a day training and ignore my other interests, alas, I never did that investmentment, so now you would not recognize that I had that potential at one time). Instead of ASSUMING that they are all "bad" people, why don't you follow their example to wealth?

If people with your attitude continue to vote, based on "envy", there will be less people attaining wealth, not more. If you continue to raise taxes on "income" (that is what eventually accumulates into "wealth"), there will be less to use, less for charity, less to save, less for those that are earning it. This country saw the fastest rise in the middle class in the mid 1900s, why?
Because those that were making the money were willing to invest/save it for the future (their children). They were not out getting tens of thousands of dollars in tattoos to cover their bodies in "personal statements" (if that investment was made in descent "art", it could be sold later in life at a great appreciation, how much do you get back from those tattoos when you are 70, 80 or 90 years old?) or travel the world (do you think that will pay the nursing home bills?) only to go home and live with their parents because they had no place of their own. Many people today see their money as "their money" and your money as "our money". They have listened to those touting "income distribution" without considering that means "their money" and property also.
Federal grants and loans were touted as a way to "level" the playing field when it came to the "wealthy" and the poor. How many "poor" go to college and end up, still poor? Do you think it might be because they have learned that "envy" and crying will get them enough to get by without having to work hard or invest/save? If you do not learn that the only way you will ever gain wealth is by sacrificing (not using all your present income on personal pleasure), and setting goals, you will always be crying about what someone else has. You have chosen not to "empower" yourself, but to assign yourself as a reaction to the events that take place in your life. You build no plan, you have no foundation, but drift with the latest fads/cults/movements because you are unwilling to think yourself into a real life.

 

[editec]

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.


Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

 

[expat_panama]

Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put...

Thanks. Sounds nice with the echo we got in here too... ...in here too... ...in here too... ... .. .... ... ...

 

[midcan5]

It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.

This may sound odd but my focus is not on the wealthy, my focus is on the idea of wealth distribution that is noted in the OP opening line, and the prevalence of this idea as an apology for the status quo and even as an excuse for greed.

Exceptions do not prove the rule. Your example could be lots of people but they are hardly wealthy, wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility. The only major exception is sports or talent figures who can go from poverty to wealth.

The idea I counter in these debates is 'Marxism on the right' as one conservative said it. Randians are contemporary American Marxists, as are most libertarians, they worship a material (individualistic) idea over the complexity of life and especially economic life in a global world economy. They are one dimensional, the replies I get demonstrate that if anyone needs proof, most are interchangeable.

In the end the proof is in the pudding, our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people.

The basic thrust of this thread seems to be that wealthy people are immoral because they attained wealth by illegal or exploitive means. Or by luck, in some fashion winning the lottery or inheriting wealth and vast estates. All of which may be true to some extent, there are boatloads of people in every walk of life and income level who have gotten where they are without really earning it. I don't think it's fair to focus on just the ones who made it up to millionaire status, ANYBODY who uses unfair practices to advance their own situation deserves censure. And prosecution....

Basic thrust is bad ideas not the wealthy - many think we are wealthy - while I could nitpick a few parts I agree with you in this reply. You seem able to see both sides. I said at the beginning I don't see 'wealth redistribution' except as subterfuge.

....Are you saying unconscious people have no rights? If so, I am pretty sure most people would disagree with you about that one.

I guess I have to take that back, you obviously are replying and obviously unconscious.

Please write your own thoughts and questions if you want another reply. I know what I wrote, I don't need to see it again. Simple questions required as thread is growing and I'm out busy creating wealth.

Midcan't refuses to recognize that his "society" strawman wouldn't exist in the absence of consenting adults, freely exchanging perceived value for perceived value.

Jeez I'm impressed more than a five word reply, you're definitely learning. Great, but your first sentence proves my point. Read it again and see if see what I mean by that. Could that just be.....

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.

Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

Don't confuse them!

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine

 

[expat_panama]

...wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility...

We need to stick to a common definition and most people say wealth is having a lot of money or valuable goods. If you want percentages in there then admit you've got your own private definition there and we'll be happy to concede you the point. We also need to stick to what's actually happening on the planet Earth. Today's Americans are more wealthy than those of a generation ago, the older usually have more wealth than they did when they were young, and America's poor are more wealthy than most people in the the rest of the world.

...our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people....

Orthodox ideology aside, hard current numbers show far more wealth is being created than has been inherited and we're far more wealthy now than before Reagan:

 

[boedicca]

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.


Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

And this is why so many people do not live up to their potentials. Hardly anything worthwhile ever gets done by a committee.

 

[boedicca]

...wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility...

We need to stick to a common definition and most people say wealth is having a lot of money or valuable goods. If you want percentages in there then admit you've got your own private definition there and we'll be happy to concede you the point. We also need to stick to what's actually happening on the planet Earth. Today's Americans are more wealthy than those of a generation ago, the older usually have more wealth than they did when they were young, and America's poor are more wealthy than most people in the the rest of the world.

...our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people....

Orthodox ideology aside, hard current numbers show far more wealth is being created than has been inherited and we're far more wealthy now than before Reagan:

I'd like to see that chart adjusted for inflation.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow. Such intelectual lazyiness and plagerism. You just post other people opinions and ask me to reply to them. I will not accept a link as an answer and I will not entertain someone so lazy that they cant defend their own positions. What kind of crap is this? Say what you will about rand. I just cited her definition of morality to back up my other comparison of that same definition located in the declaration of independence. They both say the same thing. Yet you fail to understand it huh?

You can't be serious, you post Youtubes on morality that say nothing and your replies are the stuff of an Ayn Rand robot. Plagiarism? Where?

A video from TED or Edge is a hell of lot more intelligent than the Galt silliness you presented as an answer. Haidt's piece answers your question but I'll stick with morality as comfortable for most people. Only later does the moral enter the picture. The Armstrong piece on 60 Minutes tonight demonstrated that as fact again.

And I posted links to several of my own pieces. Give an argument that counters the points not Ayn Rand talking points from her crap propaganda pretending to be literature. I think this stuff is over most people's heads here, the replies are the usual excuses for the status quo. I'll look for a real counter, but no time tonight. You need to learn a bit before coming back with another Atlas shrugging.

I posted 2 10 minute videos That clarifies an ALLREADY explained previous comment. You throw articles at me in leu of your own absence of a credible reply to which you ignored most of what I posted. Do yourself a favor. Never go to college. Such intelectual lazyness will result in failure. However, if you have been to college demand your money back! Basically what your telling me is that "I cant explain my position myself so I just post articles and let other people do my arguing for me." And when anyone rebuts your claims you just post another article. Thats intellectual lazyness.

 

[expat_panama]

...like to see that chart adjusted for inflation.

--was just thinking that myself. Here it is adjusted for inflation and population too:

--easier to see how most wealth is created and not inherited. Also shows how wealth creation hit a snag with the 'War on Poverty' and then resumed with 'Morning in America'.

 

[boedicca]

...like to see that chart adjusted for inflation.

--was just thinking that myself. Here it is adjusted for inflation and population too:

--easier to see how most wealth is created and not inherited. Also shows how wealth creation hit a snag with the 'War on Poverty' and then resumed with 'Morning in America'.

It's a pretty safe guess that a large portion of the increase in Net Worth is home equity. And a balance of approx. $500K of net worth is far from being RICH. Well off, yes, but at that level, one must still work for a living. The Rich Trustafarians who were earlier identified as the targets of Wealth Redistribution do not have to work for a living (and being a tiny minority, really aren't good poster objects for tax policy).