Liberals, why do you believe people are entitled to the work of others?

[Larniavc]

None of this works. Taxing the rich more, and not taxing the poor at all, is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, blah, blah,

I did not say not to tax the poor at all. YOU MADE THAT UP.

Please define LUCK as you use it here.

Being in the right place at the right time. My brother in law made a massive amount of money during the .com explosion. The economic opportunity he took advantage of was not brought about by his own hard work.

Someone paying a slightly higher rate of tax is NOT the same as so many people expecting to get something for nothing.

Only YOU are talking about former, here: but that is not reality.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?
[...]
No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another.

It's pretty simple. I have a higher quality of life when the people around me have what they need. Every child in my society is entitled to a free education until the age of 18, so the people around me are more educated and socialized than they would be otherwise, which benefits me. Because of the social safety net, I don't have to worry about crime as much as I would have to in a country which lacks these provisions, which saves me time, money, and stress. Because many people in the US have access to free or affordable vaccines, I don't have to worry so much about catching dangerous diseases.

It's important to realize that you also believe that people are entitled to certain things funded by those who are more successful, unless you're a radical libertarian. The only difference between you and other people is what you want to see on the list of things that are entitlements.

If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

Actually, income inequality hurts economic growth. Everyone is better off when all members of a society are entitled to a certain standard of living. Investing in the work force is the best way to go.

 

[whatbogsends]

And why is income equality a good thing? Income equality is only a good thing if everyone is putting in equal work. It's called fairness. I am in favor of rich people paying a little more, not a lot more. Tax is already based on a percentage. Even without a so called "progressive tax system" the rich would still be paying more.

Saying someone earning a million dollars taxed at 30%, is the same as someone taxed at 30% earning 100,000 is just a liberal media lie. One of them is paying 300,000 and the other is paying 30,000. That difference is enough. Anymore and it's punishing the successful.

Who was advocating income equality? People are advocating a lesser inequality than we currently have, not "income equality".

What makes US CEOs so special?

CEO Pay Ratio
The ratio of CEO pay to the median salary for all other employees in the company provides a reference of how high CEO pay is. It's often used to compare CEO pay across countries. U.S. CEOs earn from 400 to 500 times the median salary for workers. For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.

http://work.chron.com/ceo-compensation-vs-world-15509.html

 

[Cearbhall]

Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power.

Erm, if that's someone's interpretation of a Bible passage, then that's what they're going to say. Seems rather silly to politely ask them to refrain from having an interpretation that's different from yours.

 

[Hank77]

but you might want to go back and look at the OT rules regarding gleaning of the fields, think about how that compares to a modern welfare system

The poor had to work to glean the fields. The fields were not gleaned for them by the owner of the field and delivered to them. A welfare system based upon the gleaning of the fields would require the recipient of welfare to work for their welfare benefits.

You are partially correct. The farmer did a lot of work to bring that field to fruition before the poor gleaned it for themselves. However, I also agree with no worky, no eaty. I believe it is very harmful to people and their children to receive handouts for long periods of time without doing something to earn them. That doesn't mean it has to be dollar for dollar but that they are required to be a valuable part of society.

No. Work-for-the-dole schemes have been tried.

Can you give one or two examples please. If not ......

Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.

That works both ways. There is a lot of theft going on by corp. and therefore their wealthy leaders. And when some of the wealthy leaders are admitting that this is true, I think we should maybe rethink what we believe to be true.

Corporate profits are at an all time high. Owners and executives are reaping the rewards,

In one generation the gap between the top execs. and the lowest paid employee, have gone from 20 times higher to 200 times higher and that was several years ago. That rather proves your point. I really don't understand how anyone can ignore this fact or condone it.

What do you consider a fair amount of ones income that may be taken in taxes for these purposes? I am speaking of percentages. What is the maximum percent of ANYONE'S income that should be taken in taxes?

I'm assuming you are referring only to federal income taxes on ALL income. That would have to be determined by the needs of the running the country. But if all the pork were cut out of the government budget (including corp. welfare subsides) And the tax code for personal taxes was rewritten to a clear cut simple code with no itemized deductions, no dependents deductions, and a $20 - 25,000 standard deduction......And corp. are only allowed to take expense deductions that are relevant and necessary to their industries product production.....I believe we may be able to go with a 10% personal tax rate and a 25% or even less corp. tax. The only problem I see is the huge debt that we have accumulated that needs to be paid off as quickly as possible. Oh and no tax havens allowed, if you make 1 million you get to deduct the standard deduction, that everyone gets, and pay taxes on the remainder. There shouldn't be any estate taxes, that money was earned and taxed already, you should be able to give it to anyone you choose to.

 

[Aldebaran]

Erm, if that's someone's interpretation of a Bible passage, then that's what they're going to say. Seems rather silly to politely ask them to refrain from having an interpretation that's different from yours.

Showing someone their error shouldn't be a problem for those who are willing to learn.

 

[Cearbhall]

Showing someone their error shouldn't be a problem for those who are willing to learn.

Then you present your counterargument, and the person will consider it against his or her own opinion. I don't see how "Please don't think that" is convincing or constructive. It's not an argument at all.

 

[Hank77]

Who was advocating income equality? People are advocating a lesser inequality than we currently have, not "income equality".

What makes US CEOs so special?

CEO Pay Ratio
The ratio of CEO pay to the median salary for all other employees in the company provides a reference of how high CEO pay is. It's often used to compare CEO pay across countries. U.S. CEOs earn from 400 to 500 times the median salary for workers. For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.

http://work.chron.com/ceo-compensation-vs-world-15509.html

In another thread the founder/CEO in Seattle who has taken steps to shrink the gap, first by reducing his own salary, is actually being criticized for doing it by the same people that advocate for individual freedom. I guess that only means if those decisions agree with theirs.

 

[Cearbhall]

However, I also agree with no worky, no eaty. I believe it is very harmful to people and their children to receive handouts for long periods of time without doing something to earn them. That doesn't mean it has to be dollar for dollar but that they are required to be a valuable part of society.

I'm curious about your choice to include "and their children" here. As I'm sure you know, children don't have the option of working to pay for their food. Should they therefore be left to suffer because of the "sins of the father?"

 

[Avid]

... Robin Hood is a story about injustice and is the exact opposite of a well run society.

Your point assumes that only thieves are "rich," and all the "rich" are thieves. This is incorrect. There are MANY (may be MOST) thieves that are poor, and stay perpetually poor for that reason. English society is NOT a model for American society. A significant part of this culture was derived from what was brought here from that culture 300 or 400 years ago. However, they are not the same.

The story of Robin Hood was devised to explain the just over the unjust, taking from the thief to return to the victim is not taking from the rich to give to the poor...

The story of Robin Hood is used here by liberals as "...stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor." They like to tell the "poor" they are poor because the rich took advantage of them. I am not rich, but also, not exactly poor. I have had poor people try to take advantage of me, and some were successful. There are things that the poor do that keep them that way. It has little to do with luck, though there are a few things not directly in anyone's control that have some impact on events. That is not the same as being at a the mercy of LUCK.

LUCK may be blamed for the gambler winning, or NOT winning, at the horse races. It cannot, however, be blamed for the gambler taking the money intended for buying baby formula, and wasting it on the losing proposition of betting on horse races! This is how far away from reality many arguments we are getting here are from actual truth. The landlord may charge more or less the going rate for a home or apartment, and the tenant may have difficulty paying that has nothing to do with the agreement in their lease. The tenant may have had a DUI conviction, and if it is his first, that is about $7000 here in the US (we are in the American Politics Forum here.)

 

[rambot]

This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.

HA! I don't care about mandating anyone. A mandate shouldn't be needed to take care of another individual. Mandates are legalistic.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

HA! I don't care about mandating anyone. A mandate shouldn't be needed to take care of another individual. Mandates are legalistic.

If people think that people should take care of other people and the government shouldn't be involved, then why aren't enough people putting their money where their mouth is and prove that government safety nets are unnecessary by replacing it with their own sweat off their brow and money in their bank accounts? If you do not think the government should be mandated to help people, then why aren't people proving it as a waste of money?

People sign up for these programs because nobody offers help, or because they do not bother to ask for it? hmm

 

[Hank77]

I'm curious about your choice to include "and their children" here. As I'm sure you know, children don't have the option of working to pay for their food. Should they therefore be left to suffer because of the "sins of the father?"

lol, I worded that pretty poorly, didn't I?
Both parents and children suffer when the parents are not setting the example of what it means to be a productive member of society. This does not have to mean that if they receive say benefits that have a monetary value of $2,000 monthly that they would have to earn that working a job that would typically pay $2,000 a month. In fact their job could be doing voluntary work at a hospital, etc. that are often understaffed. All this time they can be building confidence and good self-esteem. At the same time they may find the work interesting and rewarding and decide to pursue an education in a medical field. Their children see that their parent is an important, intelligent, skillful person, therefore they are encouraged to do the same.
I know because I see how it works in my own small community where I personally know 3/4 of the population.
The problem that my family member, who works and has worked in two different states, in a large cities social welfare systems, tells me is that in large inner city living there is no accountability put on the individuals for their own maintenance. Their neighbors are also on the system so they don't have social motivators within their communities.

 

[Cearbhall]

lol, I worded that pretty poorly, didn't I?
Both parents and children suffer when the parents are not setting the example of what it means to be a productive member of society.

I agree. I was just wondering if you were in fact saying that children should be denied food if their parents aren't doing something to earn it. Sadly, there have been members on here before who said exactly that and stuck to it when asked for clarification. I'm glad to hear that's not the case here.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm curious about your choice to include "and their children" here. As I'm sure you know, children don't have the option of working to pay for their food. Should they therefore be left to suffer because of the "sins of the father?"

This is the logic that often gets used to take children out of homes and make them wards of the state.

 

[Avid]

... Now I pay a slightly higher tax rate because of my income and the size of my house.

What is so wrong with giving something back to a society that has supported me to get where I am, today?

... Someone paying a slightly higher rate of tax is NOT the same as so many people expecting to get something for nothing...

... Only YOU are talking about former, here: but that is not reality.

I quoted you and answered what you said. I have not put words in your mouth! I am not making this up.

This is the American Politics Forum, and we are discussing a subject about people who expect and demand something earned by others to be given to them. Whatever their reasoning, they have that expectation. We have a Constitution that does not allow for that, but our liberal politicians (liberal with what belongs to someone besides themselves,) have utilized one word in there to misdirect a significant amount of what this gov. takes in and borrows to give to people who did not earn it or pay it into the system. The bottom half of US "Taxpayers" pay about $0 in fed.IncomeTax and many get something from the Gov. in that process (in addition to whatever else they may get.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

We don't. We think everyone should have to pay taxes for the rewards they get from our economy.

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

The rich have profited from a system where the poor are given money that they can buy goods with. They have also profited from a labor pool that can keep working in a field despite breaks in employment.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that the rich are rich because of the infrastructure that taxes have built, and that includes the labor force.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The story of Robin Hood was devised to explain the just over the unjust, taking from the thief to return to the victim is not taking from the rich to give to the poor, Robin Hood is a story about injustice and is the exact opposite of a well run society.

Your point assumes that only thieves are "rich," and all the "rich" are thieves. This is incorrect. There are MANY (may be MOST) thieves that are poor, and stay perpetually poor for that reason. English society is NOT a model for American society. A significant part of this culture was derived from what was brought here from that culture 300 or 400 years ago. However, they are not the same.

You are obviously not the brightest of lights, either that or you deliberately misconstrued what I wrote.
Where did I assume that only thieves are "rich," and all the "rich" are thieves?

 

[rambot]

If people think that people should take care of other people and the government shouldn't be involved, then why aren't enough people putting their money where their mouth is and prove that government safety nets are unnecessary by replacing it with their own sweat off their brow and money in their bank accounts?

I would have to speak to people who believe government's shouldn't be involved in social programs because Christians should be doing that.

If you do not think the government should be mandated to help people, then why aren't people proving it as a waste of money? People sign up for these programs because nobody offers help, or because they do not bother to ask for it? hmm

I think government SHOULD be mandated to help. And I think that because we (the collective "we") are too addicted to whatever wealth we do have that it's difficult for us to part with it; let alone to part with it joyfully.

 

[rambot]

How does being forcibly made to contribute to the welfare of another person in any way equivalent to brotherly love( charity) ? You are accusing someone of having a bad attitude toward apples when he says he doesn't like oranges.

Why do you feel "forced" to help someone? Why can't you just help someone cause it's the right thing to do?

And nope, he has a bad attitude because he has a bad attitude; it's not apples/oranges.