How Should the Wealth be Redistributed?

[Troublemane]

...So a fiscally polarizing nation is the threat to government, right?

I think he meant a huge gap between the haves and have nots is ruining representative govt, due to the fact the ultra-rich can always buy the politicians no matter how numerous the majority of average citizens is. example: the current mortgage crisis, its not about bailing out main street, and nobody ever really believed it was--its only about the big banks, some of which arent even in this country. but its average taxpayers who will be paying the bill.

So, if foreign banks can control our govt, that puts even more strain on thinking representative democracy has any validity anymore.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I think he meant a huge gap between the haves and have nots is ruining representative govt, due to the fact the ultra-rich can always buy the politicians no matter how numerous the majority of average citizens is. example: the current mortgage crisis, its not about bailing out main street, and nobody ever really believed it was--its only about the big banks, some of which arent even in this country. but its average taxpayers who will be paying the bill.

So, if foreign banks can control our govt, that puts even more strain on thinking representative democracy has any validity anymore.

That squares with my research and this has happened quite a few times in American and world history. Euphemistically speaking, the masses suffer from fiscal amnesia.

 

[Dunemeister]

Noble deeds, and I am glad to see them carried out. What is the avenue of redress, if one of those seeking aid feels that they are not being helped as much as someone else is?

That's a problem whether the provider is the government or private institutions. As it stands right now, Americans have no recourse if the HMO says, "Sorry, not funding that." If the LDS church has a program to assist if the HMO fails them, that's great. However, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that Mormons in America get their cancer treatment paid for out of church funds as a matter of course if those people are not covered by insurance.

 

[Scott C.]

How should the wealth be redistributed? Should the wealth of the middle classes be redistributed to the upper classes like conservatives prefer? Or should the wealth of the upper classes be redistributed to the middle classes like liberals prefer? You decide!

We as a society have the responsibility to care for one another. Ideally, everyone's needs would be met through their own efforts, through the help of family and friends, and through the help of charitable organizations. In an ideal society, all of this would happen without laws that take money from those who have and give to those who have not.

Oppression of the poor, greed, and selfishness are immoral and are condemned by the Bible. In a completely voluntary system, there would be no laws to force individuals to give to the poor. People would be free to sin in defiance of scripture. Their immorality would take a negative toll on those who God expects to be the recipients of the generosity of others. Often, conservative Christians advocate laws that prohibit immoral acts which are detrimental to our society at large. On some issues, I'm in that camp. But, I find it interesting that most of these same conservatives find it outrageous to think that government would attempt to pass laws designed to curtail greed and selfishness, which are also immoral and detrimental to society at large.

I suppose in the most conservative view, there would be no public education, no public welfare system of any sort, and even perhaps a "pay-as-you-use-it" form of police and fire protection. Rational people seem to agree that there is some degree of "socialism" in order for we the people to care for one another. The question becomes to what extent should the government go to provide that care. At what point does the government become too big, tax too much, and try to solve too many societal problems? At what point does the government take away individual incentive to work and to care for oneself? At what point do we cross the line into that true "socialism" that undermines the principles of individual industry, hard work, and thrift upon which this nation was founded? Is it public education? Is it any form of state welfare? Is it state supported health care?

I have no problem with the idea that people who make more should pay a higher percentage of tax than those who make less. I have no problem with public education, public welfare, and some form of governmental program to ensure that our health care needs are met. Public welfare programs need to foster work and independence and not encourage idleness.

So to some extent, I guess you could say I favor limited redistribution of wealth. Those of us who have, should be required to give for the benefit of those who have not. To believe otherwise, would suggest that there should be no form of public welfare whatsoever.

I'm personally amazed at the welfare system of the LDS church. Large amounts of money are freely donated and much good is done in the world to care for those who have not. Non-LDS should take careful note of how the system works and the success it has. However, there are limits as to how much the LDS church can give to someone in need. The LDS church can't give thousands and thousands of dollars to an under-insured individual suffering from a debilitating illness, for example. Maybe if everyone in the world gave until it really hurt, we could meet everyone's needs through volunteerism. I don't think that's where we are in society, however, so we the people need to work together to support reasonable governmental programs to ensure that the basic needs of hurting individuals are met.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I suppose in the most conservative view, there would be no public education, no public welfare system of any sort, and even perhaps a "pay-as-you-use-it" form of police and fire protection.

The vision of the international bankers that own the Federal Reserve Bank, have a far more repressive plan.

At what point does the government become too big, tax too much, and try to solve too many societal problems?

When it fails to act in the peoples best interests and fosters the needs of the corrupt and wealthy.

At what point does the government take away individual incentive to work and to care for oneself?

When the government manipulates the core means in which one supports themselves. A major influence a government provides are the decisions it mandates on civilian education and how that education competes in the world market.

At what point do we cross the line into that true "socialism" that undermines the principles of individual industry, hard work, and thrift upon which this nation was founded? Is it public education? Is it any form of state welfare? Is it state supported health care?

When government erroneously involves it's asset's into selected private institutions.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The Liberals never want to give any of their own money, but they are very generous with other peoples money. America's poor have it better than most European countries middle class.

Understanding Poverty in America

 

[Sunstone]

So a fiscally polarizing nation is the threat to government, right?

The disparity of wealth between rich and poor is a threat to representative government. By "disparity", I mean the currently growing gap between the rich and poor members of society. By "representative government" I mean what we commonly call "democracy" or "liberal democracy" -- the traditional system of government in America.

And the subject of what's fair is not the issue at hand?

Well, you or anyone else can raise that issue if you wish. But fairness is not for me the reason I want to redistribute wealth.

I want to redistribute wealth to close some of the gap between rich and poor. That gap is a threat to representative government or democracy.

I think closing that gap requires us to do things that might be perceived by some people (myself included) as unfair.

But I value representative government over fairness in this case. To me, meaningful liberty and freedom for most of us depends on our having a genuinely representative government. And if that ultimately means that in some extreme cases some rich people get knocked out of their socioeconomic class, then so be it. I'm prepared to sacrifice their socioeconomic status for the sake of preserving liberty and freedom for the many. That's not entirely fair to those rich people, but I would rather be unfair to them than live as a slave under a fascist tyranny of the wealthy.

 

[kadzbiz]

there should be a max of 50 mil anyone could own any higher then that and it should be redistributed to the middleclass, large part of the problems arise because rich people lost there control and started trowing money away for ridicules things ( 40 mil for a painting etc.)

$50M?! Surely $1M is enough for anybody? What happened to living modestly?

 

[Sunstone]

First, how are we defining these classes? The way the word "middle class" gets used in U.S. political rheotric today is nothing like its historical use. Historically, the middle class are the businessmen — the capitalists.Bill Gates is middle class.

The history of the classes is only of marginal interest to me here. I am far more concerned with the reality and existence of today's socioeconomic classes. And my main interest in today's classes is focused on preserving meaningful liberty and freedom for the great majority of people in this country -- and preventing the rise of a fascist tyranny.

 

[Sunstone]

We as a society have the responsibility to care for one another. Ideally, everyone's needs would be met through their own efforts, through the help of family and friends, and through the help of charitable organizations. In an ideal society, all of this would happen without laws that take money from those who have and give to those who have not.

What you describe as "ideal" is pretty much the case in hunting/gathering societies. Unfortunately, there are either no or almost no hunting/gathering societies left today. And today's large societies are far too complex to manage the redistribution of wealth without making use of their governments to do it.

 

[Sunstone]

The Liberals never want to give any of their own money, but they are very generous with other peoples money.

Doubtless that statement is false.

America's poor have it better than most European countries middle class.

Understanding Poverty in America

In the first place, the Heritage Foundation is a discredited source of information. You might as well be quoting the National Enquirer.

In the second place, Rick, I really don't care how well off America's poor are when compared to Europe. America's poor could be living like kings compared to Europe's poor and middle class -- it would still be beside the point.

The point is that freedom and liberty can only be preserved for most of us if representative government is preserved. And representative government can only be preserved if there is not a huge disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in this country. Or, at least between the rich and the middle class. So even if America's poor lived like kings, that by itself would be meaningless noise. The real issue is the size of the gap between rich and poor.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That's a problem whether the provider is the government or private institutions. As it stands right now, Americans have no recourse if the HMO says, "Sorry, not funding that." If the LDS church has a program to assist if the HMO fails them, that's great. However, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that Mormons in America get their cancer treatment paid for out of church funds as a matter of course if those people are not covered by insurance.

You are correct, about the HMO's. That is another good argument for universal healthcare. There is a group of people that refer to HMO's as "murder by spreadsheet". Not a bad way to characterize it.

Like you, I'd like to see some numbers on how many people are covered for catastrophic health care by the Mormon church.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The Liberals never want to give any of their own money, but they are very generous with other peoples money.

Rick - I would assume that you consider me to be a liberal.

And yet, I not only willingly pay my taxes - I fully expect others to, as well.

How am I being generous with your money, while not "wanting to give any of my money"?

 

[tomspug]

How should the wealth be redistributed? Should the wealth of the middle classes be redistributed to the upper classes like conservatives prefer? Or should the wealth of the upper classes be redistributed to the middle classes like liberals prefer? You decide!

Class warfare is for losers.

 

[Sunstone]

Class warfare is for losers.

Does that mean you agree with me the Bush Administration are losers for having declared war on the middle class and the poor?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Doubtless that statement is false.

Joe Biden (American thing to do) has given less than 5,000 dollars to charity in the last 10 years and is a prime example of a generous Democrat.

In the first place, the Heritage Foundation is a discredited source of information. You might as well be quoting the National Enquirer.

I disagree. This is the same old same old, people ask for a quote and then discredit it.

In the second place, Rick, I really don't care how well off America's poor are when compared to Europe. America's poor could be living like kings compared to Europe's poor and middle class -- it would still be beside the point.

The point is that freedom and liberty can only be preserved for most of us if representative government is preserved. And representative government can only be preserved if there is not a huge disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in this country. Or, at least between the rich and the middle class. So even if America's poor lived like kings, that by itself would be meaningless noise. The real issue is the size of the gap between rich and poor.

The real issue is the size of the gap of education levels between the have and the have nots as well as their willingness to get off their butt.

People protect their government education and would rather dumb down folks than let others excel.

Obama wants to penalise success and start a class war with his draconian tax increases and unfair redistribution of wealth.

On a lighter side, Joe sixpack is better off than the wallstreet crowd.

$ 1,000.00 in AIG stock is worth zero while if you bought $ 1,000.00 in beer you still would have over 200 dollars left in aluminum beer cans.

 

[tomspug]

Does that mean you agree with me the Bush Administration are losers for having declared war on the middle class and the poor?

"Class warfare" is making "victims" and "antagonists" of any particular class.

 

[Sunstone]

Joe Biden (American thing to do) has given less than 5,000 dollars to charity in the last 10 years and is a prime example of a generous Democrat.

If that's all the evidence you have for the proposition that liberals want to spend other people's money but never their own, then you don't have much evidence, do you?

I disagree. This is the same old same old, people ask for a quote and then discredit it.

It's not my fault if you quote a lousy source. Get a better source! Take some responsibility for the quality of your sources!

The real issue is the size of the gap of education levels between the have and the have nots as well as their willingness to get off their butt.

Again, you are looking at this through the lens of an old, worn out paradigm. This is no longer the 1980s. At issue today is the traditional freedom and liberty of Americans -- not who is the wealthiest and dies with the most toys. Those worn out values are suitable only for children.

People protect their government education and would rather dumb down folks than let others excel.

Education is indeed a problem, but that's off-topic here.

Obama wants to penalise success and start a class war with his draconian tax increases and unfair redistribution of wealth.

First, you have produced no evidence that Obama wants to do either of those things -- either penalize success or start a class war. Is reason and evidence important to you? If so, produce the goods!

On a lighter side, Joe sixpack is better off than the wallstreet crowd.

$ 1,000.00 in AIG stock is worth zero while if you bought $ 1,000.00 in beer you still would have over 200 dollars left in aluminum beer cans.

Damn! You're right! If only 1554 New Belgium Black Ale came in cans rather than bottles, I'd be poised to buy up the market today!

P/S Someday, Rick, I'm going to send you some 1554 --- I know I probably cannot save your social conscience, but at least I might be able to save your taste buds.

 

[Sunstone]

"Class warfare" is making "victims" and "antagonists" of any particular class.

I'm not interested in starting any class wars. I am, however, extremely interested in balancing out the dangerous redistribution of wealth in this country so that the gap between rich and poor closes, rather than widens. Currently it is widening -- and I see that as dangerous to representative democracy.

 

[tomspug]

I'm not interested in starting any class wars. I am, however, extremely interested in stopping or at least balancing the redistribution of wealth in this country so that the gap between rich and poor closes, rather than widens. Currently it is widening -- and I see that as dangerous to representative democracy.

Exactly what drew you to this conclusion? I can only assume you are referring to the rising number of wealth in a smaller and smaller percentage.

Here's some thought for you:
-there would be more jobs in America and less unemployment if less jobs were shipped overseas, this is the result of making business in America EXPENSIVE due to all of the red tape our government has put in the free-market. If you FURTHER increase the tax burden, how can you argue that any of those jobs that were sent overseas will ever come back, let alone the thought of us losing MORE jobs to cheap foreign markets.
- there would be less poverty if there was LESS welfare through our government, which you would know if you've ever seen the physical results of people who receive welfare checks
- small businesses would hire MORE people (like me, who lost his small business job) if it was less expensive to run one. By raising taxes, we will see the big companies get BIGGER and the small companies disappear. THERE'S redistribution of wealth for you!