The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[Papa bull]

For many years now the vast majority of political division is directly or indirectly over wealth redistribution. I've spent countless hours thinking about what drives this divide and it always comes down to greed. No, not corporate greed. No, not the greed of the wealthy. It comes down to the greed of people who want more than anyone is willing to pay them for anything they do or offer. It is the greed of people who envy what others have and have such weak morality that they want to take it.

When you peel away all the layers of rationalization, it always comes down to the same thing.

Whether it's about minimum wage or raising taxes on the rich or capping CEO pay or eliminating taxes on the middle class or increasing entitlements, it inevitably boils down to taking from those with more and giving to those with less. That much is easy enough to understand and really not possible to dispute. What I think is not so clear is the justification.

Why does the burger flipper deserve more? What did he do to increase his value? What did you do to increase your value? Why does the welfare mom deserve more? There has to be some justification, right?

Kinda. It seems the justification always boils down to the same thing, too. It's not that the poor deserve more. It's that the rich deserve to be stripped of their wealth. Pare all the arguments down to their core and that's what you end up with; demonization of the wealthy and the corporations and industry to justify taking from them. That prevents the discussion from focusing on why others deserve it because there is no justification in that. Those that deserve more can get more. If you bring more to the table than the next guy, you'll be able to get more. If you're doing more than you did last year, you can successfully argue that you deserve more. But you can't argue that you deserve more just because someone else deserves less and that's where liberals always end up taking it.

In order for these discussions to stay in the narrow field of rational focus, value and merit must be discussed, but not in negative terms for the haves but in positive terms for the have-nots. Prove the positive because that's how our economy works.

 

[Captain America]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

That kind of wealth redistribution don't seem to bother some folks around here. But they get their panties in SUCH a wad when there is talk about redistributing it back to the lower 95%.

I wonder why redistributing it to the upper 5% tier is perfectly fine with them but redistributing BACK to the lower 95% is just a gawd-awful sin. I find it hard to believe people in the top 5% are posting here on Debate Politics.

Just don't add up.

 

[rocket88]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

For many years now the vast majority of political division is directly or indirectly over wealth redistribution. I've spent countless hours thinking about what drives this divide and it always comes down to greed. No, not corporate greed. No, not the greed of the wealthy. It comes down to the greed of people who want more than anyone is willing to pay them for anything they do or offer. It is the greed of people who envy what others have and have such weak morality that they want to take it.

When you peel away all the layers of rationalization, it always comes down to the same thing.

Whether it's about minimum wage or raising taxes on the rich or capping CEO pay or eliminating taxes on the middle class or increasing entitlements, it inevitably boils down to taking from those with more and giving to those with less. That much is easy enough to understand and really not possible to dispute. What I think is not so clear is the justification.

Why does the burger flipper deserve more? What did he do to increase his value? What did you do to increase your value? Why does the welfare mom deserve more? There has to be some justification, right?

Kinda. It seems the justification always boils down to the same thing, too. It's not that the poor deserve more. It's that the rich deserve to be stripped of their wealth. Pare all the arguments down to their core and that's what you end up with; demonization of the wealthy and the corporations and industry to justify taking from them. That prevents the discussion from focusing on why others deserve it because there is no justification in that. Those that deserve more can get more. If you bring more to the table than the next guy, you'll be able to get more. If you're doing more than you did last year, you can successfully argue that you deserve more. But you can't argue that you deserve more just because someone else deserves less and that's where liberals always end up taking it.

In order for these discussions to stay in the narrow field of rational focus, value and merit must be discussed, but not in negative terms for the haves but in positive terms for the have-nots. Prove the positive because that's how our economy works.

You've spent countless hours thinking about it and were unable to come up with an original thought?

You are not saying anything against redsitribution as much as you are saying "Tax the poor and the middle class, because the rich deserve to have everything." In positive terms for the "have-nots" (in which you erroneously include the middle), there are more of them. More people with more money is good for the economy. If there weren't so many people who weren't rich, Sam Walton wouldn't look like such a genius - Wal-Mart's very existence is based on the idea that some people have fewer resources!

Pare all of your arguments down to the core, and you end up with "Punish the middle class for not being rich." Cutting taxes on the middle makes sense because middle class Americans make up most of the consumers, and what they spend their money on is very important to almost every corporation. Almost every person who is rich got there because they created something of value to middle class consumers. If the middle class had less money to buy things, then suddenly the rich wouldn't have as much money.

 

[Gipper]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

That kind of wealth redistribution don't seem to bother some folks around here. But they get their panties in SUCH a wad when there is talk about redistributing it back to the lower 95%.

I wonder why redistributing it to the upper 5% tier is perfectly fine with them but redistributing BACK to the lower 95% is just a gawd-awful sin. I find it hard to believe people in the top 5% are posting here on Debate Politics.

Just don't add up.

That's not redistribution. That's consumption.

 

[Tigger]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

We've got two of the three viewpoints represented in the first two posts, and here's the third.....

Wealth does not deserve to be redistributed EITHER WAY. What you can get someone to pay you for the goods, services, or labor you can and are willing to provide is what you deserve to get. If you can't get someone to pay you $12 an hour to flip burgers, then you're not worth that. If you CAN get someone to pay you $247 an hour to represent them in court then that's what you're worth. The government should not be involved in this at all.

 

[rocket88]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's not redistribution. That's consumption.

But who are the consumers? More people having more money to buy things = bigger profits.

 

[Gipper]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

But who are the consumers? More people having more money to buy things = bigger profits.

Yeah? And?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

That kind of wealth redistribution don't seem to bother some folks around here. But they get their panties in SUCH a wad when there is talk about redistributing it back to the lower 95%.

I wonder why redistributing it to the upper 5% tier is perfectly fine with them but redistributing BACK to the lower 95% is just a gawd-awful sin. I find it hard to believe people in the top 5% are posting here on Debate Politics.

Just don't add up.

Bull****. Was there some sort of feckin' memo you lefties passed around telling you that if you all just swore up and down that the rich are rich because of wealth redistribution from the poor to them that you can avoid honest discussion? The "wealth redistribution" you talk about is nothing but an bold-faced lie.

Now does anyone else have something HONEST to present?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

We've got two of the three viewpoints represented in the first two posts, and here's the third.....

Wealth does not deserve to be redistributed EITHER WAY. What you can get someone to pay you for the goods, services, or labor you can and are willing to provide is what you deserve to get. If you can't get someone to pay you $12 an hour to flip burgers, then you're not worth that. If you CAN get someone to pay you $247 an hour to represent them in court then that's what you're worth. The government should not be involved in this at all.

Precisely. There is no justification for wealth redistribution. PERIOD. Not the fictitious "wealth redistribution to the upper 5%" or the actual wealth redistribution to the bottom 47%.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

That kind of wealth redistribution don't seem to bother some folks around here. But they get their panties in SUCH a wad when there is talk about redistributing it back to the lower 95%.

I wonder why redistributing it to the upper 5% tier is perfectly fine with them but redistributing BACK to the lower 95% is just a gawd-awful sin. I find it hard to believe people in the top 5% are posting here on Debate Politics.

Just don't add up.

Different philosophies. One says the top earners can EARN more, the other says "Life isnt fair. They's stealin all our pennies. Its not fair. Take it from them and give it to us!"

There was a 1,682 increase in first time "millionaires" in the US from 2012 to 2013. Those numbers regularly and steady have increased each year. You know how those folks became first time millionaires? I'll give you a hint...it WASNT by whining about how unfair life is and crying that some rich person knocked them down into the mud and stole their pennies. It also wasnt from playing the lottery or spending what little income they had on cell phones with data plans, internet, cable/satellite TV, the latest game console, cigarettes, alcohol, and an assortment of drugs and drug paraphernalia.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

You've spent countless hours thinking about it and were unable to come up with an original thought?

You are not saying anything against redsitribution as much as you are saying "Tax the poor and the middle class, because the rich deserve to have everything." In positive terms for the "have-nots" (in which you erroneously include the middle), there are more of them. More people with more money is good for the economy. If there weren't so many people who weren't rich, Sam Walton wouldn't look like such a genius - Wal-Mart's very existence is based on the idea that some people have fewer resources!

Pare all of your arguments down to the core, and you end up with "Punish the middle class for not being rich." Cutting taxes on the middle makes sense because middle class Americans make up most of the consumers, and what they spend their money on is very important to almost every corporation. Almost every person who is rich got there because they created something of value to middle class consumers. If the middle class had less money to buy things, then suddenly the rich wouldn't have as much money.

Do you have anything honest and original to present or are you just going to repeat the lie that taking from the rich and giving to the poor will make the rich richer. It's stupid and dishonest at face value, so do you want to reach deep inside and try something more honest and rational?

 

[Captain America]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Bull****. Was there some sort of feckin' memo you lefties passed around telling you that if you all just swore up and down that the rich are rich because of wealth redistribution from the poor to them that you can avoid honest discussion? The "wealth redistribution" you talk about is nothing but an bold-faced lie.

Now does anyone else have something HONEST to present?

Did I strike a nerve? Good.

That's just some Papa Bull**** folks.

But that's okay. I'm here.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

For many years now the vast majority of political division is directly or indirectly over wealth redistribution. I've spent countless hours thinking about what drives this divide and it always comes down to greed. No, not corporate greed. No, not the greed of the wealthy. It comes down to the greed of people who want more than anyone is willing to pay them for anything they do or offer. It is the greed of people who envy what others have and have such weak morality that they want to take it.

I too have thought a lot about this and what I think it is, even deeper than greed, which drives the greed, and that is unwillingness to accept the living standards that would result from people not wanting to trade with you, or not being able to trade with them.

Even when they realize that the rich powerful corporations would lose customers and therefore suffer, they can't accept people going without the fruits of today's global labor. They're locked into a deep need to have certain lifestyle needs automatically met, without risk of loss.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Do you have anything honest and original to present or are you just going to repeat the lie that taking from the rich and giving to the poor will make the rich richer. It's stupid and dishonest at face value, so do you want to reach deep inside and try something more honest and rational?

Your'e the one being dishonest by throwing in a strawman. Basically, he is spot on in the fact if the rich don't pay more it gets passed on to the poor and middle class. It becomes a progressive tax vs a regressive tax argument and one that should be explored.

 

[Captain America]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Different philosophies. One says the top earners can EARN more, the other says "Life isnt fair. They's stealin all our pennies. Its not fair. Take it from them and give it to us!"

There was a 1,682 increase in first time "millionaires" in the US from 2012 to 2013. Those numbers regularly and steady have increased each year. You know how those folks became first time millionaires? I'll give you a hint...it WASNT by whining about how unfair life is and crying that some rich person knocked them down into the mud and stole their pennies. It also wasnt from playing the lottery or spending what little income they had on cell phones with data plans, internet, cable/satellite TV, the latest game console, cigarettes, alcohol, and an assortment of drugs and drug paraphernalia.

I am stating that the system, as it is currently set up, is designed for the wealthy to amass more wealth, much like a snowball rolling down a hill gets larger. Money leads to MORE money and more money leads to even more money, and so on. And why would it not be since the system is designed by those with means? heck, we all want to be rich. But the system is fundamentally flawed and the wealth disparity has to be addressed if we to continue to function as a peaceful society.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Whether it's about minimum wage or raising taxes on the rich or capping CEO pay or eliminating taxes on the middle class or increasing entitlements, it inevitably boils down to taking from those with more and giving to those with less. That much is easy enough to understand and really not possible to dispute. What I think is not so clear is the justification.

Why does the burger flipper deserve more? What did he do to increase his value? What did you do to increase your value? Why does the welfare mom deserve more? There has to be some justification, right?

It's an especially pressing question when hundreds of unemployed people as well as automated processes (computers, machines, etc.) are all ready and willing to do the same job for less.

What inherent sense does it make for wages to rise when supply is continuously increasing and technology is increasingly replacing human labor?

Kinda. It seems the justification always boils down to the same thing, too. It's not that the poor deserve more. It's that the rich deserve to be stripped of their wealth.

The ones who are a little bit smarter might abandon those inherently weak rationalizations and adopt a set of macroeconomic rationales. Despite the soft, social science roots of economics, if one concocts an ostentatious enough macroeconomic rationalization for doing all this liberal feel-good crap, one has then insulated oneself from 99% of criticisms, because frankly most people don't speak in macroeconomic theoretical concepts.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Did I strike a nerve? Good.

That's just some Papa Bull**** folks.

But that's okay. I'm here.

So do you BUY INTO that pathetic bull****? As in...you buy that 'wealth' is 'distributed' and not 'earned'????

THATS the problem. Pandering to people telling them its not FAIR because they arent getting THEIR fair share DISTRIBUTED TO THEM. Lord...its no wonder so many people are starving.

 

[Grim17]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

You can not redistribute that which someone does not possess. Wealth has to be earned in order for it to be redistributed.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I am stating that the system, as it is currently set up, is designed for the wealthy to amass more wealth, much like a snowball rolling down a hill gets larger. Money leads to MORE money and more money leads to even more money, and so on. And why would it not be since the system is designed by those with means? heck, we all want to be rich. But the system is fundamentally flawed and the wealth disparity has to be addressed if we to continue to function as a peaceful society.

Shocking...right? Those that have wealth can invest and create MORE wealth. The problem with your process is you ignore the reality that NONE of that prevents the poor from GAINING wealth. Bill Gates could double his gross worth tomorrow and it wouldnt impact ANYTHING I am doing. Or you.

MEANWHILE...immigrants come here every day....MILLIONS in any given year...and do what people claim cant be done. They start with nothing, work their ass off, and accumulate wealth. they start 36% of all new businesses in the US. They scrimp, save, and are able to buy homes. Its inspirational and the main reason why I would LOVE to keep every immigrant, legal or otherwise, and send the crippled and dependent pets in this country back to the socialist Utopias that the immigrants desperately work to escape. Seems like a win/win.

 

[Captain America]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Read 'em and weep boys.

The assets that were once in the pockets of middle America now rest in the fat bank accounts of the top 5% of the fatcats that have you guys bamboozled.

Hey, that's just the way it is. It needs to be fixed. I'm working my ass off to try to keep what I got in MY pocket, in MY pocket. You wanna roll over and blow the rich, go for it.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I too have thought a lot about this and what I think it is, even deeper than greed, which drives the greed, and that is unwillingness to accept the living standards that would result from people not wanting to trade with you, or not being able to trade with them.

Even when they realize that the rich powerful corporations would lose customers and therefore suffer, they can't accept people going without the fruits of today's global labor. They're locked into a deep need to have certain lifestyle needs automatically met, without risk of loss.

Yes and I think that boils down to a deep-seated "need" to have what hasn't been earned. We want the cell phones and broadbrand and nice cars and nice homes and nice clothes and nice food and top quality healthcare. We just don't feel that we need to justly earn those things. They're out there. They're plentiful. We should have them just because we want them and whether we earn them or not is irrelevant. That's greed.

 

[Tigger]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Precisely. There is no justification for wealth redistribution. PERIOD. Not the fictitious "wealth redistribution to the upper 5%" or the actual wealth redistribution to the bottom 47%.

There HAS BEEN wealth redistribution by the Government in both directions over the last decade. To suggest otherwise is truly silly. Either way, it's unacceptable. That's not the role of the Government.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So do you BUY INTO that pathetic bull****? As in...you buy that 'wealth' is 'distributed' and not 'earned'????

THATS the problem. Pandering to people telling them its not FAIR because they arent getting THEIR fair share DISTRIBUTED TO THEM. Lord...its no wonder so many people are starving.

Vance, I don't think they actually do buy it but they work very hard to SELL it. As I pointed out in the OP, the only thing these people have to justify their agenda is to try to argue that the people that earned the wealth don't actually deserve it. They have to argue that it isn't earned, that it was stolen or taken through bad practices or some other generalized rhetoric demonizing the wealthy and corporations. Their position is to argue that they don't have to justify why they deserve more, but instead try to justify why the rich deserve less and then, of course, get around to what "we" should do with the excess seized after meting out financial justice to those evil villains of wealth.

It's very dishonest and even after pointing it out in the OP, it's still where they go with it, doubling down on it in the subsequent comments because it's all they've got; arguing that the rich deserve to have their property seized.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

There HAS BEEN wealth redistribution by the Government in both directions over the last decade. To suggest otherwise is truly silly. Either way, it's unacceptable. That's not the role of the Government.

I agree that wealth redistribution is unacceptable either direction but I disagree that there has been any serious bilateral "wealth redistribution". The rich didn't get richer by stealing from the poor.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Vance, I don't think they actually do buy it but they work very hard to SELL it. As I pointed out in the OP, the only thing these people have to justify their agenda is to try to argue that the people that earned the wealth don't actually deserve it. They have to argue that it isn't earned, that it was stolen or taken through bad practices or some other generalized rhetoric demonizing the wealthy and corporations. Their position is to argue that they don't have to justify why they deserve more, but instead try to justify why the rich deserve less and then, of course, get around to what "we" should do with the excess seized after meting out financial justice to those evil villains of wealth.

It's very dishonest and even after pointing it out in the OP, it's still where they go with it, doubling down on it in the subsequent comments because it's all they've got; arguing that the rich deserve to have their property seized.

Sure...they can stir up the unwashed masses by blaming everyone but that asshole staring back at them from the mirror. And a nice unruly populace makes for a great voting bloc.