Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?  (Read 42130 times)

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #25 –
It seems that the Neanderthals were wealthy, then came Cromagnons and redistributed that;)

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #26 –
Tho get back tho the subject.

Redistribution of wealth - to me that phrase reeks of ignoble jealousy. I am much more comfortable with some sort of sliding scale of taxes which pay for helping those who need help; that at least has a positive aspiration behind it rather than one based on dogma.

There are some points on the OP to be mentioned. For example:

There are not just poor and rich, there is a graduation between the two. All too often one hears arguments relation to the extremes as if everyone is either dirt poor or in the billionaire bracket.

Then there's the matter of whether highly rewarded people earn their money or just get it. But who is to judge where are the boundaries between deserving and not deserving. I wouldn't like to decide that.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
.....7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011........


JFYI ....... Being that there are over 16 million estimated millionaires in America, 7 thousand millionaires is roughly equal to 0.0004375% of the estimated 16 million millionaires (give or take a few hundred millionaires).

Which would mean that somewhere over 15 million 993 thousand, or somewhere over 15,993,000 millionaires did pay Income Taxes in 2011

Regardless,  because they make so much is not justification to redistribute it.

 
SOURCE  (pg.7 of 54 - Executive Summary)


Please, save unconstructive bashing for when one has all the facts. 

Otherwise, in principal I agree with most of what everyone has said here, except for those that chose to depict me personally as feeling otherwise.

I personally do feel there is a moral obligation for all people that have the resources to do so, to make a realistic contribution in helping the destitute, but IMHO even my feeling so doesn't justify the process.

I'm not defending any side of an issue here, all I want is for someone to provide some legitimate justification for the process in an unbiased positive manner (which doesn't include any biased US's vs.THEM's mentality).


Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

What is Wealth Redistribution?

Why does it exist?

Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.

The government needs to raise the minimum wage, or raise taxes on the rich to create another entitlement for those that have less. 

What I can't seem to understand is the justification for doing it.

Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more? 

What did he/she do of value to deserve more?

There has to be some justification, right?

Or is it only that the rich, for absolutely no obvious valid reason, deserve to be divested of their wealth & valuables?

Demonization of the Wealthy, & the Industrial Corporations to justify taking away what they worked for, to be redistributed to the lower income levels of a society.

What's the valid justification for doing it?

Is there any righteous justification for the redistribution of wealth to those that haven't earned it, from those that have?

If you think there is, please note in positive terms how those that are on the receiving end deserve receiving it.
Why does it exists? Because of the tax breaks that go mostly to the rich and the middle class gets little to nothing. Therefore the wealth gets redistributed upwards. Putzs on the Right may talk about low income McDonald's workers, but we're talking about people making 50, 60 thousand a year (in many cases actually more than that) losing out because of the flawed, outdated ideas of Supply Side Economics. Cry me a fucking river for the millionaire that will have to pay the same effective tax rate as his secretary. There are plenty of charts and graphs available to show middle class real incomes stagnating even as the 1% continue to gain wealth.

This creates an unsustainable economic situation in consumer driven economy. If you don't understand why, you don't understand basic economics. In the end, the 1% will have a bigger slice of a smaller pie. Again, learn how the American economy actually works to understand why. Globalization will postpone those consequences, but not indefinitely. It isn't the middle-class vs the rich. Having a middle-class maxed out on their credit cards, in debt upto their eyeballs will pop this economy like a balloon and bring the 1% down with it.

Now nobody is talking about actively taking wealth from the rich, merely returning to the tax rates during the Clinton years. You remember, when we were running a budget surplus and the economy thrived.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Sanguinemoon on
......Now nobody is talking about actively taking wealth from the rich, merely returning to the tax rates during the Clinton years. You remember, when we were running a budget surplus and the economy thrived.


Hey Rip Van Cooney,   [glow=black,2,300]wake-up[/glow], we're already there --- unless you want to put the hit on
middle-income tax payers again by returning them to pre-Bush too!? .

Quote from:      Bush Tax Cuts   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts    
Before the <Bush> tax cuts, the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts, the highest rate was 35 percent. Once the cuts were eliminated for high income levels (single people making $400,000+ per year and couples making $450,000+ per year), the top income tax rate returned to 39.6 percent.


The Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent by the pen of Barack Hussein Obama for those earning under $400,000 , & restored to pre-Bush (Clinton) tax rates of 39.6% for those making in excess of $400,000 per year  ---  your favorite lot ---- the top 1% filthy rich (the 1% who just happen to pay 30+% of all income tax paid in America).

In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.

A point 'Cooney, you seemingly intentionally failed to establish.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #30 –
As long as the thread has gone to chewing local American trifles, I'm gone :zzz:.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.

That's one hell of an assumption right there.

Quote from: SmileyFaze on

Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?

That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.

Quote from: SmileyFaze on

What did he/she do of value to deserve more?

Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.

How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps? That's leeching. Minimum wage isn't wealth redistribution: it's giving people what they deserve in the first place. The very idea of a paid full-time employee qualifying for food stamps is preposterous.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.

Exactly the same reason you take the money away from drug lords when they get busted. Very few people got rich by working a regular job.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: SmileyFaze on
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.

How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps? That's leeching. Minimum wage isn't wealth redistribution: it's giving people what they deserve in the first place. The very idea of a paid full-time employee qualifying for food stamps is preposterous.

But that would ruin the business models of all the walmarts, mcdonalds etc. out there. Why do you hate America?! :cry:

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Macallan on
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.
Why?

Quote from: Macallan on
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
Ability to work is not everything to qualify for survival.

Quote from: Frenzie on
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps?
So why stay at the job!?

Quote from: Macallan on
Very few people got rich by working a regular job.
But regular jobs are not created by the regulars
There are also people who employ...;)

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.

Why?

Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our :rolleyes:

Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
Ability to work is not everything that qualifies for survival.

Which has what to do with what? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Frenzie on
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps?
So why stay at the job!?

Ok, that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Macallan on
Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our  :rolleyes:
You didn't answer.
:faint:
Quote from: Macallan on
Ok, that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.
Not at all.
According to your 'model'?, everybody shall thrive irregardless of their abilities to survive? If you can't find ANY better job for yourself - what makes you think your current employer pays you wrong? Are you a communist, perhaps?

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Josh on
Quote from: Macallan on
Very few people got rich by working a regular job.
But regular jobs are not created by the regulars
There are also people who employ...;)

An employer hires more employees when demand can't be met, not because they have a cash surplus. An employer is not a "job creator", but someone who's out to make money. As a possibly flawed analogy, consider this: am I a crumb creator when I cut my bread? In some sense of the word I suppose I am, but it would be a deceptive turn of phrase.

Consider an absurdly rich person, worth thousands of times as much as most people in my own middle class environment. This person does not spend thousands of times as much money as us. I doubt they'll come much further than 10 to 20 times as much—admittedly there might be years when it's a bit more because they bought a new yacht. And all those digits of surplus money are doing the exact opposite of creating jobs. It's just sitting there.

Anyway, they can have a fair bit of surplus money as far as I'm concerned. But they ought to pay their share for the infrastructure that carried the goods they sold, the schools that educated the workers they employ, et cetera. They did not amass their fortune in a vacuum, and they'd certainly sue if you tried to get away with using their services for free.

Not everything strictly falls under the umbrella of services one should pay for, but it's still just good sense. You don't want a bunch of crime and disease-ridden lower-class ghettos for the simple reason that said crime and disease will spill over—even if you haven't a grain of compassion for the poor schmucks. Well, unless you're the owner of a for-profit jail, I suppose.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
An employer hires more employees when demand can't be met...
Give it again, will ye.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Consider an absurdly rich person, worth thousands of times as much as most people in my own middle class environment. This person does not spend thousands of times as much money as us. I doubt they'll come much further than 10 to 20 times as much—admittedly there might be years when it's a bit more because they bought a new yacht. And all those digits of surplus money are doing the exact opposite of creating jobs. It's just sitting there.
Such 'an example' shall be considered separately.
It ain't that about "divide or not divide" - that's about how such a guy could accumulate that wealth: if it wasn't legal in the first place - one case; if it was - weigh in his/her rights to do that, and on property. They have a right to be rich, aren't they?

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #40 –
Overall, judging others is easy. A poor chap wants to eat - should he blame those who has more that he doesn't have enough food? What's the point - "my mom delivered me, that's why I must have enough food"?

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on
Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our  :rolleyes:
You didn't answer.
:faint:

No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?

Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on

Ok, that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.

Not at all.

I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.

Quote from: Josh on

According to your 'model'?, everybody shall thrive irregardless of their abilities to survive?

Since when is 'irregardless' a real word? :right:
No. Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.


Quote from: Josh on

If you can't find ANY better job for yourself - what makes you think your current employer pays you wrong? Are you a communist, perhaps?

Read again. Maybe try that 'thinking' thing too some day.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: Macallan on
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?

Quote from: Macallan on
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.

^Those are your "answers" whatsoever.
Quote from: Macallan on
Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
Bullshit!
(Are you ok with a YOUR-OWN-STYLE 'answer' or shall I clarify?)
Quote from: Macallan on
Read again. Maybe try that 'thinking' thing too some day.
Cheers!
:faint:

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #43 –
What the fuck a Russian knows about capitalism? about "free market"? about sustainable economy? about Freedom? about social well fare?
About anything...
A matter of attitude.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #44 –
Don't be too hard on him. The discovery that most of us here are commie bastards is tough enough for him.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: ersi on
Don't be too hard on him.

You're right. Thanks for remembering me.

Let me tell you, the Russians, something.
I had a MyOpera blog about painting. Many of those masterpieces were Russian painting images.
The social charge of those paintings was gigantic. There's a deep social understanding ( that doesn't exist in the US, for example*) in the Russian soul that is at the bottom of magnificent work of arts, both at music and painting, not to speak about literature.

My dear friend josh is not able of destroying the heritage of his people.

* American painting is very interesting to me. It shows clearly why the different Americans exists at DnD.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?

Quote from: Macallan on
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.

^Those are your "answers" whatsoever.

Nonsense. Read the whole post,  even just the parts you quoted will do :faint:

Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: Macallan on
Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
Bullshit!
(Are you ok with a YOUR-OWN-STYLE 'answer' or shall I clarify?)

Missing the point by a mile. Not exactly a surprise :rolleyes:

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: ersi on
Don't be too hard on him. The discovery that most of us here are commie bastards is tough enough for him.

I propose to turn the argument around. What's communism? It's taking things from a big community-owned pool of free stuff without paying for it. The system falls apart because people take more than they should and don't put enough (or anything at all) back in return. Opposing environmental taxes is to argue in favor of communism. Using public infrastructure without paying for it is communism. And so forth. A pool of free stuff is not capitalist.

In a capitalist system, we charge people for taking things from our pool. There are no such things are free pollution and free infrastructure—no free lunch, as the Americans say. The system might actually stand a chance of being self-sustainable if it were capitalist instead of communist.

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls.  :cheers:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emF3gtmVS0s[/video]

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #49 –
A lively thread, but based, I feel, on a meaningless phrase.
"Wealth Redistribution". Does it mean something specific?

"irregardless", on the other hand, means absolutely nothing.