Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?  (Read 42171 times)

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

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Macallan on

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.



So, I gather you have no 'valid' justifications then, only your traditional, personally directed verbal bombast to deflect away from your apparent deficiencies. Some things never change .... How droll...

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

Reply #51 –
[glow=black,2,300]Envy:[/glow]  Noun
1. A feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another.
2. Spite and resentment at seeing the success of another.

Envy is not a 'valid' justification for the process of Wealth Redistribution.

The overwhelming majority of wealthy businessmen are not criminals, but if you listen to the 'dye in the wool' progressive socialist, they all are --- each & every one --- & to prosecute & punish them for the wealth they so obviously stole, they must be forced to hand over their plunder so it can be gleefully given & shared amongst all the envy driven masses ---- not just the actually deserving destitute who do need help.

The wealthy businessmen/richest earners' real "crime" is simply success.

What do these dastardly heinous criminals do with their excessive benefits?

Hmmmmm....Invest in their businesses, save, start new businesses, support charities, etc...etc... All of which employ others....others that just so happen to support their families, support their communities, & buy goods & services at reasonable prices from companies that bolster the economy --- companies that are run by some wealthy businessmen, who's companies earn their customers loyalty by simply charging reasonable prices.

Yes, it is shockingly criminal isn't it.

What do you think?

Do you know of any 'valid' justification for Wealth Redistribution?

Are you like some merely willing to toss verbal bombast as your only retort, because you believe there isn't any need for justification in the process of Wealth Redistribution? 

Do you, like some others, think that it's somehow the moral right of some democratic process --- not merely a form of legalized theft? 

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

Reply #52 –
/Sees OP's topic

/Sees Josh has posted in it

/Obligatory USSR National Anthem posted for Josh.  :left:  :right:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M[/video]

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

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Macallan on

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:
Quod errat demonstrandum.

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

Reply #56 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

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.

Which is probably why even Marx himself thought it could only be implemented in stages, if at all, with a large majority of people being honest and altruistic enough to behave themselves without being forced to.
I doubt many people here know what communism actually is, other than the usual "whatever Stalin did" nonsense. There are even real life examples, just not in countries run by parties calling themselves 'communist'.

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

Reply #58 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
So, I gather you have no 'valid' justifications then, only your traditional, personally directed verbal bombast to deflect away from your apparent deficiencies. Some things never change .... How droll...
Should we expect an answer or is it hopeless?
So far it's stayed such a way...
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
The overwhelming majority of wealthy businessmen are not criminals, but if you listen to the 'dye in the wool' progressive socialist, they all are --- each & every one --- & to prosecute & punish them for the wealth they so obviously stole, they must be forced to hand over their plunder so it can be gleefully given & shared amongst all the envy driven masses ---- not just the actually deserving destitute who do need help.
Those socialists propagate most extensively and are taking over.
In a balanced society, socialists are either not allowed to influence the affairs - or simply do not survive (actually they are all idiots - and must die or at least be prohibited from propagation).

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

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Macallan on


I doubt many people here know what communism actually is, other than the usual "whatever Stalin did" nonsense. There are even real life examples, just not in countries run by parties calling themselves 'communist'.


Let's get them to know what liberal is first. Then socialism. After that communism.  Anybody that calls Obama that later two is a retard when it comes to political/economic policy. I'm not even sure he qualifies as a liberal.

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

Reply #60 –
On the remark:
"Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?"

I don't know why people object to that phrase, but I understand that they can. The reason I put it that way is because there are at least three stereotypes in there:

1 The McDonald's worker
2 the welfare mom
and, implicitly
3 the rich man

Those labels mean different things to different people so therefore the message intended by the sentence would depend on those interpretations. For example is a welfare mom someone who deserves help or someone who is a parasite on society. The other two labels are the same - they depend on one's personal viewpoint on how they are interpreted. Consequently the meaning of the question is not clear and there are several different answers to it.

You can't tell how these labels are perceived which why I wrote "I don't know why people object".

So I don't know myself how to react to that sentence without more explicitly info on how it is meant.

On a more constructive note, I liked Frans's remark on the value of the infrastructure for therein lies a very valid argument on why richer people, and particularly business people, should pay more tax than the lower paid. In the context of making money all society is the infrastructure which creates the environment in which money can be made.

It's not black and white. For example a transport company can exist because there are roads (or airports or docks) to use but so does an individual person. However the use made of the roads is different so between individual and the business man and his company. It is logical that the latter should pay proportionately more for that "support" for their profits.

On the social side one can also think of people as an infrastructure of sorts, worthy of payment according to their value.

Note that I'm talking income taxes here, not wealth taxes. Wealth tax is another matter.

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

Reply #61 –
1. Income taxes are already (should be) proportionate - and the rich, paying the same %, pay more - proportionately.
2. As for the use of infrastructure and such, those payments could either be or not included into a certain "general tax" - in the latter (preferred) case they won't depend on the person's/company's wealth or income but rather on the actual use or some such. Don't you think?

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

Reply #62 –
On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.

It has been suggested, for your info, that having one low rate for all income levels would increase the total amount of tax paid, since these avoidance schemes would not be worth while. But I suspect that's wishful thinking; once the cat is out of the bag it has run away already.

On 2 - One could envisage infrastructure use being paid for in direct taxes on business, although that is complex especially when business compete against foreign companies in countries which have other ways of raising the taxes they need. So that shifts the burden back to income tax of one form or another (VAT is another source which takes money from income).

The thing to remember is that "infrastructure" is a very wide term and includes all things that make up ther country; it includes the education of people that work in businesses, the police that do their job, health workers and even the military. It also includes the work force itself. All these things need to be paid for.

A problem with being poor is that life has to go on with a relatively small residue after all necessities, taxes etc are paid for. With increased income that gap gets bigger (as it should ) and eventually to levels where necessities are a vanishingly small issue.

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

Reply #63 –
Revolution. Let the Northerner barbarians starve, the true meaning of redistribution.
A matter of attitude.

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

Reply #64 –
There have been societal changes, I wonder to what extent these can be laid on personal responsibility and to what extent it has become "structural" to our economy.
One thing is the McDonald's worker. This job has traditionally been a stepping-stone. It's your first job, you learn to set an alarm clock, show up on time and do your job dependably. Having established a track record of doing these things, you look for the next better job-- somewhere else, not McD's-- and so begin the climb up the ladder.
Now, we hear that people are becoming career counter help at McDonald's, and they're complaining that a job that was never intended to be your life's work doesn't pay enough to support a family. Of course it doesn't. It was meant to provide enough that you could afford gas for your daddy's car and you could take Cindy Lou to the drive-in on Saturday night-- but not much more than that. Nobody was supposed to stay behind the counter at McD's for long.

So--- why is this happening? Lack of better jobs-- that's one possibility. The economy kinda stinks, and everybody knows it. Near criminal lack of ambition may play a part too. If you haven't enough imagination to see yourself doing anything except flipping burgers and fries at McDonald's, then you keep getting McDonald's pay for that job--- and remember, that job was only meant to be transitional-- from kid to adult, or as your last job boosting your retirement income.

I feel for the people stuck in a job like this because of bad economy and lack of other jobs. I feel considerably less bad for people who have no ambition and are now demanding that McDonald's pay them way more than the job is actually worth. It's a "starter job", not a career destination.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

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

Reply #65 –
Quote from: string on

On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.

It has been suggested, for your info, that having one low rate for all income levels would increase the total amount of tax paid, since these avoidance schemes would not be worth while. But I suspect that's wishful thinking; once the cat is out of the bag it has run away already.

On 2 - One could envisage infrastructure use being paid for in direct taxes on business, although that is complex especially when business compete against foreign companies in countries which have other ways of raising the taxes they need. So that shifts the burden back to income tax of one form or another (VAT is another source which takes money from income).

The thing to remember is that "infrastructure" is a very wide term and includes all things that make up ther country; it includes the education of people that work in businesses, the police that do their job, health workers and even the military. It also includes the work force itself. All these things need to be paid for.

A problem with being poor is that life has to go on with a relatively small residue after all necessities, taxes etc are paid for. With increased income that gap gets bigger (as it should ) and eventually to levels where necessities are a vanishingly small issue.
The idea reducing the tax rate for the top income earners increases total revenue is wishful thinking as well, even if the tax rates remain progressive. History shows, time and time again, all you wind up doing is increasing the deficit.  The McDonald's worker is stereotype deliberately propagated by the GOP and their Fox/AM radio lackeys for Romeny's infamous 47%, even in fact, it's often middle-class people that wind up paying no Federal income tax for various reasons.

Josh seems to have no concept of economics. Want to make the businesses pay directly for the infrastructure that supports them and not use other funds? How badly do you want kill small businesses? Maybe that idea originated with  the mega-corporations to eliminate small start-ups through the tax system before they become a threat? And oh yeah, it's not just those businesses that use that infrastructure :p

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

Reply #66 –
Quote from: string on

On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.

Also, ( in the US at least ) the lowest incomes are so low that they can't afford any taxation without dropping below the poverty line, hence the need for progressive income tax rates.

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

Reply #67 –
Just a bit of common sense as I see it, Sang. You say paying for infrastructure will kill the radio starsmall guy?
Then what about minimum wages - how's that for the small guy?

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

Reply #68 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on

I feel for the people stuck in a job like this because of bad economy and lack of other jobs. I feel considerably less bad for people who have no ambition and are now demanding that McDonald's pay them way more than the job is actually worth. It's a "starter job", not a career destination.


My first job was delivering newspapers door to door, then on to working as a bagger at a supermarket, then on to selling ice cream from a bicycle-driven cart (I kid you not)

...and look at me now!

Here's a guy who started at McDonalds.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aglCtZei55k[/video]

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

Reply #69 –
Hmm… :P

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

Reply #71 –
Giving a McDonald's worker more money solves nothing. Regulate that which affects the cost of living. Healthcare, in the US, is pointless without an overhaul of the pharmaceutical and medical industries. More money is pointless as long as energy or really fuel can drive up the price of everything. Corporate, medical, educational and welfare all need better management. Which means you start with the politics

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

Reply #72 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

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.
You haven't demostrated to my satisfaction that exists at all, except from the middleclass to the millionaires. A few percent higher income tax isn't wealth redistrubtion. It's paying down the deficit. You also know damn well that even in the Clinton years, if you paid 39.6 income tax, you have a very bad tax preparer, not to mention taxes on other (unearned from work) income only being 15%. Your blather is one of the many reasons the GOP is in downward spiral.

"Conservatives" can't stop being out touch not only with the voters outside their shrinking circle , but with reality itself.Every fucking study in the goddamn world shows the super rich accommodating wealth at the expense of everyone else (including likely the bottom half of the top 1%) My own family is in the top few percent and still the debts mount. Do you get it? Of course, not being a shill and lackey.

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

Reply #73 –
This place is really starting to feel like home. :)

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

Reply #74 –
In the physical terms, the rich ain't "accomodating" any wealth -- since the invention of money it has become less crucial to store corn, hide or something. The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival. (Of course, buying some yachts and paying for construction of skyscrapers in the centre of a city can serve as a certain exception -- with which exception the guy makes dozens or hundreds of other people (ship-builders, construction workers) earn enough to eat, pay for their children's school, etc.)