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

[whatbogsends]

I doubt that if they went to a top ranked college, pulled in around the top 10% of their graduating class, and had a major that is highly desirable they wouldn't be able to find work.

I mean unless unemployment is extremely high, being at the top of your class, at a excellent college, I'd see no reason for unemployment unless your personality is just really bad.

It's not about smart it's about being practical to the market. Are your friends 4.0 students graduating from a top 20 university with a degree in the hard sciences?

Now that's a great argument. Just be in the top 10% of the top 20 schools and you'll be all set. You've set a threshold for success at < .01% of college graduates to be assured success. What you're saying is that for 99+% of college graduates, and 100% of non-college graduates, don't be surprised if there are no good jobs to be found.

While i don't think prospects are quite as dim as that, you've painted quite the picture of the land of opportunity.

 

[Fantine]

Perhaps the reason why we disagree is that I think of Christ as a servant leader rather than a judge.

During his time on earth Christ saw beauty, good, and value in everyone he met, regardless of gender, occupation, economic status, or ethnicity.

The sad part of business' current trend of lowballing American salaries (and undercutting them with outsourcing) is that we need a strong middle class to provide a consumer base for American goods and services. Our country prospered most when the middle class shared in our prosperity. No matter how much riches the wealthy amass, they are only able to stimulate the economy so much....because there is only a certain amount of goods and services they consume.

This is why states and cities who have raised the minimum wage are prospering, and why extended unemployment benefits stimulated the economy more than another (yawn) tax cut for the rich.

 

[Avid]

... I went to college. I got a relevant degree. I still can't get a job in my field (I've mentioned why many times, didn't I mention it here? I cant' remember. Basically no one wants to hire for entry level so I can never get my foot in the door)...

This exposes the lie that a college education (University) is the end all of getting a job.

I had told someone who worked menial labor many years ago, and he was grumbling and stated how the employer would really be hurting if all the people like him were to quit at the same time. I said, "If I were picking up a load of day laborers in the back of my pickup, and as I was pulling away, heard you talking like that, I tell you to get out, I'd turn around, and get someone else standing there looking for work!"

They will work a good horse to death, then they will just buy another horse!

 

[Avid]

... I think of Christ as a servant leader rather than a judge.

During his time on earth Christ saw beauty, good, and value in everyone he met, regardless of gender, occupation, economic status, or ethnicity...

Not true, What about the Money Changers? (We have their descendents in our world today!)

 

[Sean611]

No it isn't. More expensive isn't necessarily better. Kids at the private Christian school back in my hometown fell way behind in math and science. It's gotten to the point that the federal government has had to intervene in higher education.

Also, how do you reconcile your belief that private schools are better than public schools with the following articles?

• Arizona posts lowest college completion rate, highest default rate
• Look who's dragging down Arizona grad rates
• Tighter Oversight of ITT
• Profits and predatory loans: The story of Aequitas and Corinthian Colleges
  
• Obama Administration Announces Final Rules to Protect Students from Poor-Performing Career College Programs
  
• What the New Gainful Employment Rule Means for College Students

Unfortunately, what goes on in our own back yards isn't a good way to measure national trends. Are private school options always better in all cases and in all geographic areas? Of course not and I've never made such a claim, but it is undeniably true that students in private schools achieve better scores on tests, are happier to be at school, have better character, and face less class disruptions.

Here is an article that gives cited sources that show students at private schools score better:

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html

Here is an article written by a life-time public school teacher that is leaning toward sending his kids to private school and he gives the reasons:

http://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...l-teacher-but-a-private-school-parent/386797/

Public school teachers also send their children to private school at twice rate of the general public:

https://www.aei.org/publication/why...te-schools-at-a-rate-2x-the-national-average/

As far as rising costs in secondary education, government is responsible for that. If government gives out loans to students and colleges are guaranteed payment from government, why not keep raising your rates every single semester? This is why government student loans are in the shape that they are in, seems rather obvious.

 

[Sean611]

I stopped reading your post at this point. Unless you have some suggestions on how to administer a functional government without tax income, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of that post.

Well, that's awfully open-minded of you!

What's interesting about your post is that you didn't try to argue that it isn't theft, just that it is apparently necessary. Liberty-oriented people would argue that good ideas don't require force or aggression. Also, if the only way a government can fund itself and survive is through tax revenue, the I'd argue that you have government that is way too big. What programs does the government offer that couldn't handled more efficiently at the private level and at a local level? Does the Federal government know what's best for all people in all communities? Does one size fit all? What's wrong with experimenting with new ideas and trying new approaches to programs and spending?

On another note, I keep seeing the argument that people are not trustworthy and are evil and, therefore, we need a large Federal government to keep them in line, yet I never hear an explanation as to why it makes sense to give a small group of these same evil and untrustworthy people the reigns of a near limitless power. Do people all of the sudden became honest and trustworthy once they achieve political office? I sincerely would like an answer to this question.

 

[majj27]

Slanted and Leading question is slanted and leading. It's no more a useful question than if someone asked "Hey Conservatives: why do you take pride and enjoyment in killing poor people?"

The answer to the OP's query is: I don't.

Now, had the OP worded it like this: "Why do you support a progressive tax system, and using it to give support to low-income citizens?"... now THAT would be a valid question.

 

[Sean611]

I'm almost shocked by some some of the arguments in this thread.

This is a Christian site, right?
You wouldn't know it looking at this, straight from the OP on.

So Christ forced/forces people to come to him and to follow him or else he locks them in cages? That is what government does if you don't obey them.

Some people believe that wasting at least $.70 of every dollar on government bureaucracy is not charity and not a wise use of funds. On the other hand, at least $.70 of every dollar of private charity goes to the actual cause. I guess that demanding accountability from government and demanding wise use of spending is somehow less than Christian? The amount of blind trust and faith people have in government is truly frightening. Also, where is the proof that these programs actually help? Poor people have been voting Democrat for 50 years and they are still poor. Is it un-Christian to wonder if these programs do more harm than good?

Also, there is not one example of Christ using force and aggression in his ministry to further his ministry, yet we humans are apparently in love with the use of force and aggression. After all, it must be charity that our tax dollars are being used to drone wedding parties and children in the middle-east, but hey, that is just collateral damage and if a few innocent people die for the common good, who cares right? Sounds real Christian....

Now, instead of getting serious responses, somebody is going to reply and say muh roadz. So there, I saves you some time!

 

[HonestTruth]

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

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.

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?

Note how the issue is posed in the form of a leading question.

The OP has reached a certain conclusion without fist giving us the basis for his idea nor given any supportive details which confirm his thesis.

 

[morningstar2651]

What's interesting about your post is that you didn't try to argue that it isn't theft

Taxes and bills aren't theft. Refusing to pay taxes while enjoying the benefits of taxpayer funded programs is theft. Refusing to pay taxes is like refusing to pay for items at a store and taking them home without paying for them. Try refusing to pay for your car or house. If someone repossesses your car or house because you didn't pay - they aren't stealing from you.

You pay a fee to receive all the benefits of a functioning society. This is a financial transaction, and if you refuse to pay for the services you use, then you are a thief and you go to prison.

 

[NotreDame]

Note how the issue is posed in the form of a leading question.

The OP has reached a certain conclusion without fist giving us the basis for his idea nor given any supportive details which confirm his thesis.

I understand how this characterization of the author's post is reached but the author of the opening post did provide a very broad and general principle to defend his idea of taking the income of one person, rich or not, and redistributing to another is impermissible or should be impermissible. After all, the author said:

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

Looking at the totality of the statements, he is referencing a presently existing condition or belief, such as welfare, which is to take from the successful (income, which is a fruit(s) of their labor) and redistribute to the less successful. He is also asking, for those who would defend such a scheme, why they support this conduct?

Other people in this thread have properly understood, to varying degrees, he is referring to welfare programs, as they have attempted to espouse a defense of those social welfare programs. Of course, social welfare programs are funded by taking through taxation a portion of the income (fruits of labor) earned by other people and redistributing a specific amount of the taxed income to other people through a myriad of programs such as government housing subsidies, food stamps, welfare money, etcetera.

To be sure, the author's opening post is most certainly an exercise in brevity but there is enough information in the opening post by the author to understand his position and why he is opposed to redistribution of the wealth.

​

 

[NotreDame]

Slanted and Leading question is slanted and leading. It's no more a useful question than if someone asked "Hey Conservatives: why do you take pride and enjoyment in killing poor people?"

The answer to the OP's query is: I don't.

Now, had the OP worded it like this: "Why do you support a progressive tax system, and using it to give support to low-income citizens?"... now THAT would be a valid question.

His comments would embrace "a progressive tax system, and using it to give support to low-income citizens."

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

The title to the thread could have perhaps been phrased more eloquently, perhaps less in a way of suggesting liberals already have such a belief. But, if you are someone inclined to "think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful" then he is asking why you believe so. If this does not apply to you then you are not asked to answer the query.

 

[Sean611]

Taxes and bills aren't theft. Refusing to pay taxes while enjoying the benefits of taxpayer funded programs is theft.

I'm a law-abiding citizen and I pay my taxes, but to pretend like all these benefits or services just vanish if there are low taxes to no taxes is naive. Many of these services can be provided locally and more efficiently.

Refusing to pay taxes is like refusing to pay for items at a store and taking them home without paying for them. Try refusing to pay for your car or house. If someone repossesses your car or house because you didn't pay - they aren't stealing from you.

I'm sorry, but this is a foolish comparison. If I voluntary purchase a vehicle or a house and agree to and the sign the terms of the contract, that's on me if I decide that I don't like the terms later. I don't get to decide anything with regard to how MY tax dollars are spent nor do I have any choice in what must be paid in. That's not freedom and to compare those two circumstances is silly and makes no sense.

You pay a fee to receive all the benefits of a functioning society. This is a financial transaction, and if you refuse to pay for the services you use, then you are a thief and you go to prison.

I agree 100% that services cost. I also agree that if I use services and agree to the services, then I should have to chip in. What I don't agree with is that I must pay a certain amount and if I don't, I get thrown in a government cage. I either am forced to accept the government services (even ones I don't use) and pay for them or else. I think that human interactions should be voluntary and if there is a better and cheaper way to provide a service than what the government offers, then I shouldn't be forced to fund a wasteful government program. When a program is more efficient than government, the government steps in and says no more or they regulate them out of existence. Furthermore, I use zero welfare and I will never use welfare, yet I bet you think I should have to chip in for the common good? How is that not theft?

 

[interpreter]

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied about what they were giving to God's people. They didn't have to sell it to give and they didn't have to give it all, it was theirs at their disposal. But they said that they were giving it but didn't.
This is very much like the Pharisees law of Korbin which Jesus taught against because the person with the money would say that they were giving to God so they couldn't care for the parents, when in fact they still had it to do whatever they wanted to with it.

Wrong. There was nothing voluntary about it. To be accepted into the Church, they had to sell all their possessions and give all the proceeds to the Church. And if they tried to hold anything back by lying about it (which was the only way they could do it), they were killed. That is involuntary socialism.

 

[Hank77]

Wrong. There was nothing voluntary about it. To be accepted into the Church, they had to sell all their possessions and give all the proceeds to the Church. And if they tried to hold anything back by lying about it (which was the only way they could do it), they were killed. That is involuntary socialism.

And just who killed them?

 

[dogs4thewin]

You are not entitled to what you did not earn ( above and beyond what is needed to live. Otherwise, what would be the point of improving yourself?

 

[whatbogsends]

I understand how this characterization of the author's post is reached but the author of the opening post did provide a very broad and general principle to defend his idea of taking the income of one person, rich or not, and redistributing to another is impermissible or should be impermissible. After all, the author said:

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

Looking at the totality of the statements, he is referencing a presently existing condition or belief, such as welfare, which is to take from the successful (income, which is a fruit(s) of their labor) and redistribute to the less successful. He is also asking, for those who would defend such a scheme, why they support this conduct?

Other people in this thread have properly understood, to varying degrees, he is referring to welfare programs, as they have attempted to espouse a defense of those social welfare programs. Of course, social welfare programs are funded by taking through taxation a portion of the income (fruits of labor) earned by other people and redistributing a specific amount of the taxed income to other people through a myriad of programs such as government housing subsidies, food stamps, welfare money, etcetera.

To be sure, the author's opening post is most certainly an exercise in brevity but there is enough information in the opening post by the author to understand his position and why he is opposed to redistribution of the wealth.

​

The OP clearly stated a premise that it is the poor who are taking unearned wealth from the rich.

The first two of his 3 opening statements are directly relating to the poor taking the fruits of the rich. The 3rd statement, doesn't specifically talk about rich or poor, but is an extension of his first two statements in which he accuses the poor of stealing from the rich.

Your characterization of the OP is far removed from the reality of the OP.

The people in the thread who have discussed other means of confiscating one's fruits were doing so to show the false premise of the OP. We understood what the OP intended, and disagreed strongly as to the validity of the premise as a description of the reality of the American economic system.

Moreover, it has been explained that the majority of those receiving government welfare are actually working, and the fruits that they are claiming from via government assistance programs was earned by them, but withheld by their employers, who aren't footing the true cost of labor.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What you are missing is that the equation is not [effort in] equals [economic status].

[effort in]+[luck]equals[economic status].

Luck is a huge force multiplier in this case.

Such progressive methods such as taxing the rich reduce the effects of luck.

I was able to go to uni only because my government put up the money in the form of grant.

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?

Well, luck is maybe part of it. Hard work does not promise you will succeed, but NOT working hard almost certainly means you will NOT have as much.

 

[NotreDame]

Moreover, it has been explained that the majority of those receiving government welfare are actually working, and the fruits that they are claiming from via government assistance programs was earned by them, but withheld by their employers, who aren't footing the true cost of labor.

The OP clearly stated a premise that it is the poor who are taking unearned wealth from the rich.
The first two of his 3 opening statements are directly relating to the poor taking the fruits of the rich. The 3rd statement, doesn't specifically talk about rich or poor, but is an extension of his first two statements in which he accuses the poor of stealing from the rich.
Your characterization of the OP is far removed from the reality of the OP.

No, your statements above are not accurate and do not refute my prior remarks. After all, the author begins with a query which makes no reference to poor or rich.

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

The third statement was a general principle, a broad statement, once again making no reference to poor and rich and not exclusively applicable to any relationship between the poor and rich.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another.​

Your understanding of the opening post was influenced by your own bias but my understanding was based in the "reality of the OP."

Moreover, it has been explained that the majority of those receiving government welfare are actually working, and the fruits that they are claiming from via government assistance programs was earned by them, but withheld by their employers, who aren't footing the true cost of labor

First, this reasoning is problematic. To assert Johnny is entitled to a portion of Matt's income through a social welfare program because Johnny's employer is underpaying him (Johnny) is an irrational notion. Johnny may be underpaid but Johnny not being paid enough from his employer does not entitle him to a portion of someone else's (Matt's) income, and Matt is not under any obligation to compensate Johnny for being underpaid by his (Johnny's) employer.

Second, Johnny did not labor to receive or earn any portion of Matt's income from Matt's employer as compensation for labor performed to Matt's employer. Rather, Johnny labored to receive X amount of dollars from his employer for labor provided to his employer. As a result, it is not rational to think Johnny earned any amount of Matt's income which was paid to Matt from Matt's employer for labor Matt performed for Matt's employer.

Third, there has been no demonstration or showing "employers...aren't footing the true cost of labor." So your statement is based upon a premise, a statement, whose truth has not been shown or demonstrated to be true or likely true.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wrong. There was nothing voluntary about it. To be accepted into the Church, they had to sell all their possessions and give all the proceeds to the Church. And if they tried to hold anything back by lying about it (which was the only way they could do it), they were killed. That is involuntary socialism.

Oh my goodness! Where did you get this idea? If you read what is written where I think you got it, you'd notice that it was quite voluntary. They did it out of gratitude. Here's a commentary on it: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/4-35.htm