Those against redistribution of wealth

[child of wonder]

There should be programs available to help people better themselves. My wife and I did not make good choices and had 2 children before we were married. We had only high school diplomas. I was laid off from my job and qualified for a federal grant called WIA (Workforce In Action) plus Pell Grants because of our kids and our meager income. At one point, we were on WIC and used it to get milk, formula, cheese, etc. and used daycare assistance as I went to school FT and my wife worked FT.

After two years I had my Associate's degree and 3 years now after that I make a very comfortable living. My family is very fortunate to have gotten the assistance we needed to make a better life for ourselves.

Mathematically speaking, the taxes I pay in now (I pay in every year -- no refund) in a single year will probably trump the taxes I would have paid in my entire lifetime had I not received any government assistance. So from that financial standpoint alone, I'm a success story since the government will earn it's money back from me many times over in income tax.

Do people abuse the system? Absolutely. Does that mean we should take it away? I don't think so. We should be very careful to ensure people have less opportunity to abuse the system but it should not be taken away.

Systems that help people better themselves should continue. Some others that simply allow people to suckle at the governmental tit should receive less funding or be eliminated all together.

 

[Svnla]

I don't know how old the OP and others are but I am old enough to hear the "all boats will rise, help your comrades, for the common good for everyone" line before.

Human nature is selfish, we want the best for us and our immediately family. Why would we want to help others while they don't even care to help themselves?

For example, immigrants like myself come here with NOTHING but after a few years, we have college degrees/businesses/good jobs/nice houses/etc. and with the EXACT same opportunities as ANYONE in the US. Why is that we <mostly> make it and the natives, especially the minorities, could not?

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Many people complain that higher taxes and "social" programs like health care, etc. are bad. That if people make money, they want to keep that money, and they want the government out of their pockets.

It's a fair argument, but then what do people like that think of people on the streets, etc. who can't have the same opportunities?

There is a difference between taking taxes to cover social programs the gov't is obligated to provide and taking it to send people a free check. If congress passed a bill today that raised taxes a fraction to pay for a program that would help those willing to get off the streets, I wouldn't complain. If congress passed a bill today that raised the taxes of the wealthy just so I could get a $500-$1000 check in the mail, I would complain. That is straight up BS.

 

[Stuxnet]

It's not that we don't feel a moral obligation to help, it's that many of those redistributions go to black holes. Like SagaLore said in the second post, I have no problem helping someone get up on their feet, but I do have a problem feeding someone who won't get off their ass.

Forcing redistribution is a disincentive to produce and innovate; the economy as a whole suffers as a result. But there is a social and economic benefit from turning a nonproductive member of society into a productive one, and I'm all for that. I don't know anyone who isn't, really.

I say fund the hell out of programs that promote higher education and make it more attainable to the masses. Fund the hell out of technical programs. Etc. But simply moving money from A to B because B needs it more than A does nothing to decrease B's need in the future or to help B be a more productive member of society.

Like someone else said, there's a reason "socialism" is a dirty word. This is why.

 

[ParticleMan]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People have the incredible notion that they deserve what they earn.

Yet the notion you deserve what I earn is credible?

LOL

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

If everyone "bettered themselves" who would do the low wage jobs? Someone has to take $9.50 an hour or whatever minimum wage is.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

If everyone "bettered themselves" who would do the low wage jobs? Someone has to take $9.50 an hour or whatever minimum wage is.

Perhaps the unemployed who are collecting food stamps? There are zillions of examples of able-bodied Americans suckling from the system when they could go out and work.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

That makes a TON of sense. And while I consider myself fairly liberal (and for things like social health care, etc.), I've always been against the fact that it's quite obvious that some people work harder than others to achieve their goals and should be rewarded better.

Sure, there are poor people on the streets panhandling. Could they get a job any other way? Is it possible?

Have you ever talked to those panhandlers? They are there by choice. Some of them even have apartments.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
They should eliminate all income tax and just do a straight sales tax of 20% or whatever it would need to be to break even.

I'm beginning to reconsider the whole flat national sales tax. It seems to me the most important part of the economy is the flow. The higher the sales tax, the less people buy. Sure, the government will get a chunk of change with rich guy buys a yacht, but the production of that yacht required a minuscule fraction of jobs compared to the thousands of jobs needed to produce goods, transfer goods, and sell the goods in walmart.

I say screw sales tax, set it to 0 across the board. Instead set a flat income tax nationally and let states set flat property taxes. You make more money, you contribute more. You own more property, you contribute more. Let the cash flow freely in between.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People have the incredible notion that they deserve what they earn.

Yet the notion you deserve what I earn is credible?

What is incredible is that you think you earn anything. Everything you think you earn and own is nothing more or less than a gift.

OK, thanks god.

 

[BrownTown]

Lets see, I work 60 hours a week to make a living, but somehow I own some of this money to a bunch of lazy people who don't work at all? I am all for helping those with serious disabilities or in complete poor circumstances, but that is only a moderate percentage of these welfare programs. The problem isn't so much the fact that we are trying to help others, its the way we are doing it. Just giving a dude money is not a good idea. Anyone we is able-bodied and wants welfare should be put to work by the government on infrastructure projects like what happened in the New Deal (if we are gonna pay them anyways we might as well try to get some use out of them). Another problem is women having children just for the money from the government. These people should not be paid, if they have a baby I am not responsible for it, THEY are. IF they cannot take care of it the baby should be taken from them and the woman should stop getting money.

I dunno, it really is not an easy subject, but the problem is that we SUPPORT people for being leeches instead of punish them. Even worse is the fact we let these people vote, that way its easy for them to just demand money for doing nothing. Something like 40% of the people in this country pay NO takes, pretty soon the leeches will outnumber the working class and then our country is truly doomed .

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Where does my moral obligation begin and end? Does the person that has 9 kids with ADHD receiving social security benefits deserve my help?

Charity is a good thing. When the government is put in charge of it, the leeches (administrative costs, lawyers, undeserving recipients, CORRUPTION) suck off most of the benefit, intended for those that truely need help.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

That makes a TON of sense. And while I consider myself fairly liberal (and for things like social health care, etc.), I've always been against the fact that it's quite obvious that some people work harder than others to achieve their goals and should be rewarded better.

Sure, there are poor people on the streets panhandling. Could they get a job any other way? Is it possible?

Have you ever talked to those panhandlers? They are there by choice. Some of them even have apartments.

you are part of the problem. the reality is that there is a very high percentage of mental illness in the homeless population. just as there are some homeless by choice, there are as many who need a helping hand to get out of the hole that they are in. just like every issue, extremist viewpoints such as JS80s are wrong.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

That makes a TON of sense. And while I consider myself fairly liberal (and for things like social health care, etc.), I've always been against the fact that it's quite obvious that some people work harder than others to achieve their goals and should be rewarded better.

Sure, there are poor people on the streets panhandling. Could they get a job any other way? Is it possible?

Have you ever talked to those panhandlers? They are there by choice. Some of them even have apartments.

you are part of the problem. the reality is that there is a very high percentage of mental illness in the homeless population. just as there are some homeless by choice, there are as many who need a helping hand to get out of the hole that they are in. just like every issue, extremist viewpoints such as JS80s are wrong.

What extreme view are you talking about? Where did I mention mentally ill people?

Just like in every issues, viewpoints lacking critical thinking such as alien42s are wrong.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: CPA
My moral obligation should not be managed by the government.

Where is your moral obligation in not taking something you haven't earned?

Except what you utterly fail to understand is that redistribution does not give to people who didn't earn it, it's the other way around. For example, baseball or football players being taxed at high rates is great because most of them didn't earn their money, they were just born with physical gifts. Or CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars; at a certain point, there's no way you can possibly justify a CEO making hundreds of millions while his company goes bankrupt and he hoards all the money for himself and his family. These are clear cases where a higher tax rate is in order. Not to punish their success, but simply make sure they realize that the greatness of the U.S. played a part in their success (and in most of these cases, pure luck).

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: CPA
My moral obligation should not be managed by the government.

Where is your moral obligation in not taking something you haven't earned?

Except what you utterly fail to understand is that redistribution does not give to people who didn't earn it, it's the other way around. For example, baseball or football players being taxed at high rates is great because most of them didn't earn their money, they were just born with physical gifts. Or CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars; at a certain point, there's no way you can possibly justify a CEO making hundreds of millions while his company goes bankrupt and he hoards all the money for himself and his family. These are clear cases where a higher tax rate is in order. Not to punish their success, but simply make sure they realize that the greatness of the U.S. played a part in their success (and in most of these cases, pure luck).

So successful people are that way because of "pure luck"?

Do you wake up every day wondering why you didnt do more with your life, so you take it out on people who did?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
It's not that we don't feel a moral obligation to help, it's that many of those redistributions go to black holes. Like SagaLore said in the second post, I have no problem helping someone get up on their feet, but I do have a problem feeding someone who won't get off their ass.

Problem with this contention is that it doesn't represent reality. The vast majority of redistribution goes to the middle class (though that has been dwindling in recent years). Welfare accounts for nowhere near a large portion of wealth redistribution.

Forcing redistribution is a disincentive to produce and innovate; the economy as a whole suffers as a result. But there is a social and economic benefit from turning a nonproductive member of society into a productive one, and I'm all for that. I don't know anyone who isn't, really.

I say fund the hell out of programs that promote higher education and make it more attainable to the masses. Fund the hell out of technical programs. Etc. But simply moving money from A to B because B needs it more than A does nothing to decrease B's need in the future or to help B be a more productive member of society.

Like someone else said, there's a reason "socialism" is a dirty word. This is why.

Except socialism seeks to make everyone exactly as financially well off as the other. The proposed wealth redistribution in the Obama administration is nothing like socialism, it's common sense; if wealth redistribution was a disincentive then why don't we simply tax everyone at the same rate? Because it would be lunacy to claim that a guy like Warren Buffet should be taxed at the same rate as his secretary making 60K a year. And that's actually true in real life, Buffet was able to get out from paying a lot of taxes and was taxed a lower effective rate than his secretary, and he himself admits just how unfair that is.

 

[GenHoth]

I don't mind helping other people. I mind a very inefficient, blundering and corrupt entity taking my money by force and giving it to who they see fit.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So successful people are that way because of "pure luck"?

No. Read carefully.

Do you wake up every day wondering why you didnt do more with your life, so you take it out on people who did?

Read again, you're confused.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: CPA
My moral obligation should not be managed by the government.

Where is your moral obligation in not taking something you haven't earned?

Except what you utterly fail to understand is that redistribution does not give to people who didn't earn it, it's the other way around. For example, baseball or football players being taxed at high rates is great because most of them didn't earn their money, they were just born with physical gifts. Or CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars; at a certain point, there's no way you can possibly justify a CEO making hundreds of millions while his company goes bankrupt and he hoards all the money for himself and his family. These are clear cases where a higher tax rate is in order. Not to punish their success, but simply make sure they realize that the greatness of the U.S. played a part in their success (and in most of these cases, pure luck).

That's the dumbest shit that I've read all day.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: CPA
My moral obligation should not be managed by the government.

Where is your moral obligation in not taking something you haven't earned?

Except what you utterly fail to understand is that redistribution does not give to people who didn't earn it, it's the other way around. For example, baseball or football players being taxed at high rates is great because most of them didn't earn their money, they were just born with physical gifts. Or CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars; at a certain point, there's no way you can possibly justify a CEO making hundreds of millions while his company goes bankrupt and he hoards all the money for himself and his family. These are clear cases where a higher tax rate is in order. Not to punish their success, but simply make sure they realize that the greatness of the U.S. played a part in their success (and in most of these cases, pure luck).

That's the dumbest shit that I've read all day.

About the level of intelligence I expected in your retort.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Evan

About the level of intelligence I expected in your retort.

You don't know much about professional sports then.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Evan

About the level of intelligence I expected in your retort.

You don't know much about professional sports then.

I can't help that you're so poorly informed that you can't understand that most professional athletes don't "earn" millions any more than a working mother earns 80K.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: CPA
My moral obligation should not be managed by the government.

Where is your moral obligation in not taking something you haven't earned?

Except what you utterly fail to understand is that redistribution does not give to people who didn't earn it, it's the other way around. For example, baseball or football players being taxed at high rates is great because most of them didn't earn their money, they were just born with physical gifts. Or CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars; at a certain point, there's no way you can possibly justify a CEO making hundreds of millions while his company goes bankrupt and he hoards all the money for himself and his family. These are clear cases where a higher tax rate is in order. Not to punish their success, but simply make sure they realize that the greatness of the U.S. played a part in their success (and in most of these cases, pure luck).

That's the dumbest shit that I've read all day.

I could not agree more.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I'm curious to know how those against redistribution of wealth don't feel some sort of moral obligation to help.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, feed them for a lifetime. People need to have goals - to work up to being good fishermen.

There have been true socialist societies attempted, and they failed horribly. Most people stop bettering themselves if there is no direct compensation for being becoming better.

It is very difficult to fish when the water is so far away and it keeps moving farther and farther and farther.

Then that person starves and the person who can run fast enough to catch up with the water lives, making society as a whole better able to survive.

rofl @ this grade school level evolution insinuation.