Comments on: Creative Wealth Redistribution

By: in israel

in israel — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:02:07 +0000

Redistribution of wealth is stopping the manager of that restaurant from dipping his fingers into the tip jar of the hard working servers.

By: P / P

P / P — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:23:42 +0000

OK, Adam, I get your argument. You are not necessarily supporting “charity” which is backed by the government’s power of deadly force. Your are arguing the necessity to our economy of helping those in need. Is this a fair summary?
If so, your argument fails by the laws of economics. “What is compensated is repeated.” If you compensate need without requiring some form of production in return for the compensation, you will produce more need.
Speaking as one who has watched the last 4 & 1/2 decades of growth in the welfare state, I can guarantee you that compensating need CORRODES the economy, it does not grow it.
In addition, government at all levels – but especially at the national level – has historically and consistently DRIVEN CHARITY OUT of those areas of our society where urgent need exists and where it is most effectively, and most economically, met by private charity. (I would be happy to discuss this in more detail, but do not want to divert this thread from the main topic.)
Our constitution does grant taxing power to Congress, but it does not grant wealth redistribution power.
If you want a strong, stable, growing economy, you should be demanding a return to constitutional government of the economy. That alone would make all individual income taxes UNNECESSARY to fund current federal operations. It would also restore the money and incentives to private individuals and organizations to do for those in need what this country has always done in greater proportion and with greater freedom than any other country.
And, finally, to anticipate your argument that private resources are not adequate to the need, permit me a personal anecdote. Some years back, I was part of a small (<10 people) organization working on housing challenges in my locality. We were able to generate private funding to supply 15 families, 47 heartbeats, with transitional housing support for up to six months. All done over the course of two years. All done with what amounted in 2008 dollars to less than 100,000. If government had done it, staff costs alone would have been 5-10 times our total budget. All money NOT spent directly on the need.
So my response to your argument – that we should have a little bit of socialism just for the economy’s sake – is that the laws of economics, the Law of the Land, and the practical realities of government all argue against your case.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:15:12 +0000

Patsy, I’ll do you one better. Instead of going back to school how about staying in school? They could also improve the school system which has failed miserably under the protected teacher’s unions.

Unions protect teachers, not students. Money is not the issue. We spend a lot of it on education. If kids stayed in school and were given a quality education they could make more of themselves as adults.

By: Patsy

Patsy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:26:23 +0000

Adam, Adam, Adam, you are trying to place the same value and contribution to society on all forms of work, acting as if those who have acquired the knowledge, experience and work ethic to achieve great success in their careers are not entitled to keep what they’ve earned. No one is taking away an unfair portion of those workers who hold low income jobs, why should it be that those who have done what it takes to become wealthy have that which they’ve earned taken from them and given to those who can’t or won’t do what it takes themselves?

Let me tell you something, Adam, you can be anything you want to be in this nation, so long as you’re willing to work hard & sacrifice. You have to use your head and navigate your way through the various paths one must take to success, but if you are determined, anyone can make their way to the promised land. There’s even a fair amount of help along the way for certain groups of individuals.

If you are stuck in a low income, miserable existence, that’s your fault and you can do something about it. Go back to school, on a government insured student loan and get yourself a trade or professional degree. Qualify yourself for something better. Stop trying to sanction the theft of others’ accomplishments. Get off your lazy butt and get to work! And keep your damn hands off my company’s bank account and my employees’ share of the profits.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:00:36 +0000

just remember that the obama fuhrer is a racist commie who along with most democrats hate our constitution.they will do anything ot over turn our liberties and replace them with obama though.if you like detroit,d.c.or any city or country run by negroes vote for this creep and see what you get.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:31:55 +0000

Social Security has been a failure because it takes money from one group and gives it to another. We are not “saving” for our retirement, money is being taken to pay for people who are retired. If our money were invested in accounts for us then there would be no problem.

Before i hear the cries about the market melt down, the current elderly would not have been affected because they were not allowed to enter. Those who have a way to go until retirement will be fine, history shows us this (even after the Great Depression, those who left their money in the market became very wealthy).

I also have an issue with increasing the cap on income subject to SS. When SS is paid out there is a maximum limit and regardless of how much you paid in you are restricted to this limit. The government takes this money each month and spends it on non SS things.

SS would have been a good idea if the money taken were invested in growth accounts with low risk (lower interest rates) so that they could grow over time with minimal fluctuation.

SS in not guaranteed and the government can stop paying it any time they want. It is my money and i should be allowed to take the risk if i want to. Those who do not can live on $1200 a month and fit into the categories that Adam and Obama say need help because they can’t afford medication AND food.

I plan not to have to worry about that because I KNOW that the government cannot take care of me. Only I can take care of me.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:46:34 +0000

Schatzee:

I don’t think it’s the government’s job to provide charity but I believe that there are programs and laws we can put in place in the same vein as the Social Security Act and unemployment which may on surface seem to be about redistribution or socialism but in reality they would help our bolster our economy. I don’t think most folks seriously (and this is debatable I suppose) want the US to be socialist, but I think many people recognize the benefit that certain aspects of socialism have had and will have on our own economic policies.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:15:44 +0000

Adam,

“jerk” wow…zing! You really got me there! My question as to your stupidity was rhetorical. Anyone who reads your posts here already knows the answer. But you make a valid point (finally)…any discussion with you or attempt to show you the error of your thinking is a waste of time

By: Schatzee

Schatzee — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:53:53 +0000

I think you’re missing my point Adam that it is not the government’s job to provide charity in any form (IMHO). If you believe that is the way to help the economy then you should by all means do it. And if you feel little pinch on your taxes, feel free to give more. That is your right. I just don’t feel that is the way to solve things. I believe in paying a fair share of taxes to provide for a strong military not a weak society. Rights come with responsibilities and too many people today want to demand their rights without shouldering their responsibilities.

Those who need temporary assistance get it – even those who should not. It is becoming an epidemic. I don’t think addicts should receive benefits. I don’t think my taxes should increase to provide healthcare for others. That is not helping the economy of my household, I tell you that much. It makes me resent the governmental intrusion in my life and taking my hard-earned money to squander as they choose. Everyone should pay a fair share – not the more you make the more you owe. That is unreasonable.

Taxes could be lowered if our representatives listened to us and our desires instead of their own ideas or those of lobbyists. Stop spending our taxes on leased vehicles and flights around the world and all that BS and start spending it on the things that matter to us – borders, security, our country.

By: Kim Spinney

Kim Spinney — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:30:17 +0000

All of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!