Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by 888888, Dec 27, 2011.
Yeah...ever notice how most of the EBT crowd are not suffering for Calorie count?
Actually, most statistics show that conservatives donate to charity at a much higher rate than liberals. The difference being, of course, that such contributions are voluntary, where the "good" liberals want to do comes not from voluntary action, but via governmental fiat. I suppose this amounts to "generosity" if you consider it being generous to spend someone else's money.
Its Greed to define it as purely YOUR OWN MONEY as opposed to wealth that you cooperatively generated in the context of the society: As Ben Franklin put it:
Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing...." http://books.google.com/books?id=bM...age&q=franklin property last farthing&f=false
ALL societies engage in wealth transfer. Why would a democratic society be banned from democratically deciding the rules of that transfer?
Not all that much. And the majority of that is their donations to their church. Which counts fully as a "charitable deduction" even though only 6% of it it goes towards actualy "charitable work" - the rest on average going to "paying the dues of the club" - ie maintaining the clubhouse, paying the staff, raising membership.
In essence its like saying that 94% of your Country Club dues count as "charitable giving" if the Country Club is a not-for-profit organization that gives 6% to helping the needy.
Fully 1/2 of our esteemed politicians ARE 1%ers. Do you think maybe that's got something to do with anything? LOLOLOL
ALL forms of government are forms of social engineering. Our system of government was designed to maximize the benefits of General Welfare ... that includes freedom but also other things.
Um how so? You actually underscored my point.
In Egypt, the GOAL of society was their "living gods" and wealth was redistributed to serve that
in ME France, the GOAL of society was fealty to the Divinely Ordained (King and Church) and wealth was redistributed to serve that
in Ivanov Russia, basically the same thing applied as in ME France
No it is the very goal of society - ALL society. Because societies are formed to accomplish JOINTLY what cannot be accomplished individually. That means there is net increased wealth and that wealth necessarily has to be distributed. And since humans are different in their capabilities, their contribution to, and benefit from that distribution will NECESSARILY be assymetrical. Thus the GOAL of society is redistributionof wealth.
no. It means that the politics of the rule making and personal decision making are dichotomous. but how you choose to act PERSONALLY does not necessarily reflect your beliefs about the social contract and society's goals. MADD has been quite successful in its campaign against drinking and driving simply by focussing America's societal conscience on the disconnect between the action and the impact on society. That many still do so simply reflects a disconnect between pesonal perception and the perception of how one fits and connects to society. Not whether or not the goals of society are not being met. IE its innumeracy, not social theory.
No the "goal" is to REDUCE wealth redistribution - supposedly. IOW rather than allowing laws of capital ownership to be used to extract the generative wealth of labor and transfer it to the paper owner who "creates nothing" (so goes the Marxist theory - not my notion), the wealth created by the worker is retained by the worker. So Marxists would argue that their approach has LESS Wealth transfer than what you argue for
No Wealth transfer is nothing more and nothing less than that. It is the allocation of societal wealth based on laws. Particularly when it moves that wealth from those who are creating that wealth to those who are not. Slavery fits that definition. How is free manual labor not wealth redistribution?
Societies come together to accomplish together what cannot be accomplished individuallly. PERIOD, nothing more nothing less.
That "accomplishment" is what that society values.. IE its "wealth". It can be cash, it can be power, it can be reputation, it can be security, it can be neck rings... it is - as Franklin pointed out - whatever society deams as valuable
And the rules that govern that society determine how that "wealth" is distributed
And since the "wealth" is greater than what any one individual can create, and since no two individuals contribute the same towards the creation of that excess wealth, the rules NECESSARILY REDISTRIBUTE that generative effort IN SOME MANNER.
QED, ALL SOCIETIES REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH... and that creation and distribution of that wealth
[qute]Even if wealth redistribution were the key reason for society, that still leaves the issue that society, being as it is what happens among people, is separate from government. [/quote]
Nope. Government is the regulatory aspect of society. Nothign more nothing less
Right - because you have a BELIEF rather than an analytic approach to this.
So, when you take some of that wealth, where are they going to get it from? Do they keep it under a mattress? Can you tell us how much wealth will be lost through the transfer, and how many jobs that represents?
Well since the Fiscal Multiplier for the REAGAN tax cuts to the upper quintile was 0.7. And the average government domestic spending in a HEALTHY economy is 1.5 (and even conservative economists admit that in a struggling economy in recovery the FMs ARE HIGHER) then we can easily conclude that WEALTH WILL BE CREATED...
Separate names with a comma.