It's up over 17 trillion, and the national debt has nothing to do with income redistribution. Wealth is neither created nor destroyed, it's just moving from one pot to another.
In other words, it's not as if letting the millionaires and billionaires keep that extra 20 percent is going to pay down any of the national debt.
It's a good heart that helps those in need. Those who follow Christ often do that very thing through their tithes and offerings. Or they volunteer their time to help others as it is a command of Jesus to his followers. However, Jesus did not command the governments the responsibility to care for the poor and downtrodden but his followers personally. And that is the rub. One way is done freely. The other through government is forced. Jesus also likes a joyful giver. Not too many folks I know are joyful being forced to pay for benefits of others when they already give to the needy. Jesus also taught personal responsibility for one's choices in life. Forgiveness is freely given, but that doesn't negate the consequences. The Scriptures tell us those not willing to work don't deserve to eat. Those who have been personally responsible should not be penalized for those who have not. And when the government forces them, it amounts to stealing.
Yet you believe there are piles of money lying around to allow your income redistribution philosophy of life.
How grand for you.
First, I didn't say they shouldn't be free to trade with others.
Second, what I was referring to was the need to have our priorities straight. Human beings are more important than the almighty dollar.
We have a responsibility to take care of the poor.
They don't take kids away because their parent's income is too low.
Yet you believe there are piles of money lying around to allow your income redistribution philosophy of life.
How grand for you.
Not quite sure how to say this without being rude, but I'm surprised you don't make a lot more than you do because you're clearly very intelligent.
According to the US department of commerce, americans bring in 13.4 trillion dollars per year in wages. According to the Brookings Institute, the top 1% of earners make a 25 percent of that total.
So approximately 3 million Americans earn 3.35 trillion dollars a year.
The irony is that we're so unimaginably wealthy in this country that we could easily eliminate poverty altogether and nobody would have to sell off all their belongings or come anywhere close to doing that.
It will never happen, though.
Why has the meme "income redistribution" become so very popular lately? Could it be *gasp* that it is yet another diversion to not only keep people divided, but it is being used by this administration to cover up the stark fact that after five years, nothing much has been accomplished in getting people back to work? Where is someone like FDR?...he handled worse problems than this, and everyone knows it! I'm not a Democrat, but I have great admiration for his handling of the problems he faced! He didn't do everything right, because he was human, but on this issue, he sure did, and the people loved him for it!
Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:
All that would happen is that a new level of what is considered poverty would be set. In addition, who gets to decide how the efforts, goods and services of others would be given to those that did not earn them in order to temporarily end poverty?? Reality is that there will always be a segment of society which is comfortable to live in poverty if it means not having to work. I have relatives that are perfectly happy living on state welfare, social security and food banks as long as they have enough to drink on. What would the strategy look like to fix that?
We need to change how we try to combat poverty because, so far, we have blown billions trying to solve it and the numbers have remained the same since Johnson declared "war" poverty.
So what?
All this means that you need to contribute more.
The US will not accept your wish of Socialism.
However, Jesus did not command the governments the responsibility to care for the poor and downtrodden but his followers personally.
vesper said:Jesus also taught personal responsibility for one's choices in life.
vesper said:The Scriptures tell us those not willing to work don't deserve to eat.
vesper said:And when the government forces them, it amounts to stealing.
What do you mean I need to contribute more? I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm advocating for a managed capitalism.
Minimum wage should be nearly triple what it is today.
No family should have a household income below $40,000 / yr.
Current minimum wage for a single earner is about $15,000 / yr at a 40 hour workweek.
And you can manage your new idea with your own money - there is a novel idea!
Yes you are arguing for socialism - reallocating income.
Usually this philosophy operates under dictatorships, as history has shown us.
You are right that Jesus likes the joyful giver. It is up to every person to give and what he decides to give is between him and God.
In America, we are unique because every citizen has the opportunity to wear two hats. First, everyone is an individual, and we have the ability to donate our time and money as individuals as you have said.
The second hat we put on is as governors of this country. Through our votes, we actually steer the direction our government goes in. Therefore, we have a responsibility to think for ourselves as individuals, but at the same time we have a responsibility to think as stewards of America, because the choices we make at the polls are what shapes this country.
As an individual, I give to charity.
As a voter and an American, I feel I have a responsibility to my fellow Americans. I recognize that as charitable as Americans are, the poor are not getting enough to where they can truly take part in society. Therefore, I think redistribution at a government level in the form of taxes is in the best interest of the country.
The government has the right to tax, it's not stealing. If it were, we wouldn't have been commanded to render unto caesar. The government is supposed to to what is best for the people, by the people. In so doing, we entrust it with the ability to levy taxes.
So boom, minimum wage earns 40,000 a year for folding towels in a gym. Then what? Now everyone who was getting what a fry cook makes now will want their pay increased to reflect the work they do in comparison. "Poof" you have now made $40000 the new poverty level and while the market catches up with your new minimum wage, businesses fold and people lose their jobs while the rest try to rebuild and restructure in order to maintain a semblance of profit. This also means that retirees are somehow going to have to come to terms with $15 dollar burgers, $12 gas, and Social Security checks that would hardly cover the monthly electricity bill....
But the level would be at a more humane place. There are people in this country living hand to mouth, literally. That isn't right.
As to who gets to decide.... the government we elect has that right.
We already have income taxes. All I'm saying is bump the rate up for the top earners a bit more than it is now.
You missed the point. If minimum wage were raised to that level, in a short amount of time, $40000 would only buy as much as minimum wage does now.
Same end - wrong again.
You want it, you fund it.
I'll bet that you could even start your own website where rich folks can donate to others.
Let me know how that goes, or are you too lazy to do that also?
Leave the rest of us out of your games.
No, it's called being humane. We have the money, so we have the responsibility to look out for the poor.
This looks like a slippery slope argument to me. I'm not buying it. Just because you raise the minimum wage doesn't mean everyone else gets a raise from their employers.
Hello, my friend.
Most folks are clueless on how our economy really operates, and make moronic statements about realigning income so everyone is the same.
They have no understanding of how a profit based business operates.
No profit = no businesses.
Of course, these morons have never actually started and run a business of their own.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?