redistribution of wealth? social programs? compassion or stealing?

Question

I would like to insert the idea that people in favor of redistribution of wealth, are compassionate. People that oppose this idea have a self-interested, cold-heart or understand something i do not. They will say 4 things 1 that conservatives give more to charity than social minded individuals and that government should not interfere with this as charities will take care of the poor 2 that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is stealing the hard earned money of the rich 3 that good economics will need an individuals desire to accumulate great wealth to fuel the economy, and if the government takes part of his wealth, this is punishing him for success...and rewarding the lower class for laziness.... 4 the lower class does not need handouts as this creates laziness and and hurts them as they need to pick themselves off the floor

do you see this as some type of intelligence? or just cold-hearted greed?

Answer 1

First -- let me applaud you for two things:
1. the completeness of your analysis of the other side's argument. As I was told many years ago by my professor of rhetoric, it is impossible to know your own position until you are capable of making your opponent's argument as well as he can. Well done.

2. This is a devisive issue that tends to generate more heat than light (I've already read the responses of those who've posted before me), and you have presented the argument in as neutral a manner as possible. Well done, again.

Now -- let me try my hand at an answer. I believe both positions are incorrect, because each side is informed by a flawed view of human nature. The Liberal view maintains that Human Nature is essentially positive, while the Conservative view is that it is negative. Both sides' views on social policy directly relate to this fundamental question.

If you view human nature as negative, then, it naturally follows that emphasis MUST be placed on creating penalties for individuals who engage in "anti-social" behavior. So -- lock up the criminals and throw away the keys. Say of the poor people, "Let them eat cake."

The Conservative view maintains that human nature is essentially evil, and therefore, the only hope for humanity is in the attempt to inculcate virtue by creating positive rewards (wealth, success, etc) and reinforced punishments for those who will not do so (prison, poverty, hunger, etc).

The problem with this view is that it reduces the human condition to choice, and makes a god out of "will power." This is fatuously reductionist.

Liberalism, on the other hand, views human nature as essentially positive -- which leads to a serious dilemma -- "how do you explain the existence of evil?" For liberals, the answer is found in an analysis of social conditions. In effect, the liberal argument is that people are basically good, but are made "bad" as a result of unjust social conditions (poverty, racism, sexism, etc).

Liberalism thus shifts the blame to society, and therefore focuses its attention to broad societal policies meant to attack and alleviate the causes of bad behavior. The problem with this view is that in practice it tends to create excuses for failure and an unjust sense of entitlement.

We've tried the conservative approach. We've gotten tough on crime, reduced welfare, and opened up the possibilities for the accumulation of wealth -- and it hasn't worked. The problems remain.

We've tried the liberal approach. We've eshewed punishment for rehabilitation, and provided broad social welfare nets, and we ended up with more criminals and a permanent economic underclass hopelessly addicted to state subsidies. Neither side has achieved its stated goals, and I would offer that this is so because each ideology is based on a flawed assessment of the human condition. Human nature is neither good nor evil. Instead, we are blessed and cursed with equal propensity for both. And if this is the case, we must attempt to find the Aristotelian "Middle Way."

We live in a complicated, internecine world in which individual fates are subject to a wide variety of factors not under their control. Thus the conservative view simply cannot work. But we also live in a world where individual effort can make a dramatic difference, and society therefore cannot exist in the absense of
individual responsibility. Thus, true liberalism is likewise doomed.

The middle way is found by assessing the nature of reality. What factors are under the individual's control, and which are not. For example, health care is not under the individual's control. Accidents happen, and diseases pop up. All too many people have been reduced to poverty by the astronomical costs of health care as a result of afflictions not within their locus of control; and in a truly just society, therefore, these costs should be borne by all of us collectively. Society should step in to reduce the anxiety.

Likewise, society cannot progress, nor collect the revenues necessary to pay for universal healthcare, without a healthy environment for business. Unless we unleash the creative potential of the individual, and create genuine incentives for the accumulation of wealth, society cannot prosper. Governments that have tried draconian tax policies to fund unlimited social protections have all lived to regret it. It's a liberal notion that won't work -- forget it.

I've gone on long enough; but I think you get my point. In the determination of just policies, we must always make the determination as to whether something IS or IS NOT under the control of the individual. If it is, we must tread softly; if it is not, we must move with all collective speed to rectify.

Hope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.

Answer 2

It's funny how all these compassionate socialists always fail to redistribute any of their wealth in my direction....

The key point is that free-enterprise capitalism generates new wealth and redistributes it based on merit. People compete with each other to be more efficient and productive so that they can earn more money.

Socialism redistributes existing wealth based on perceived need. By having the economy controlled soley by the State, what you have actually done is create a gigantic monopoly with coercive force over the individual. Unfortunately,since there are no benefits to hard work or risk-taking, the system cannot generate new wealth or provide incentives for improving production efficiencies.
Therefore, everybody ultimately suffers, and nations using this system either go bankrupt or remain stagnant and mediocre.

Socialism and Communist systems happen when competition is removed from free-enterprise capitalism. You end up with a huge monopoly which, unfortunately, also controls the police and the food production. All human liberty ceases. As well as a chance for self-improvement.

Answer 3

I don't think it's necessarily cold-hearted greed. If you take a look at the richest man in the world (Bill Gates), you will see that he is also the greatest philanthropist in the world.

However, there are a great many people who make a great deal of money that give less than their fair share back to their society. I feel like a relatively simple answer to the whole problem would be a flat income tax across the board. I realize there are issues that it doesn't quite account for (how do businesses account for their earnings and how much do they pay on those, etc.). But if the government took 10 cents of every dollar earned across the country, that would fix a lot of social issues we have. The government would be able to nationalize health care. They would be able to nationalize higher education and properly fund early education. They would be able to invest in clean, green sources of energy for a higher return later. There are so many things that could be solved.

However, there are a lot of people (specifically the ultra-wealthy) who would complain that they give more money than the poor. But if you think about it as "regardless of what you're making, you pay 10 cents out of every dollar," it doesn't really sound unfair to anyone. At least, it doesn't sound that way in my book. If I end up making six figures a year, I'd be more than willing to pay four figures in taxes. That still leaves me with a lot of figures to play with.

Answer 4

That might be the system there, however where I live we have a welfare state- the state guarantees a certain level of social security, but simultaineously requires people to be actively looking for work.

We do tax the rich a bit more from their income, but after factoring in all the taxes in products/foods and so forth, everyone is taxed pretty much the same. I am not bitter about people receiving aid- single mothers, students and so forth deserve aid, after all they are contributing to society and it makes sense that they are helped along the way. More babies and more education means more tax payers to share the load.

I have not personally met anyone who wants to live only on welfare throughout their life, and I suspect that these are a myth. After all, one wants to start earning towards pension.

The gap between the rich and poor, is not very wide, here and no one needs to live in hardship a la USA, where people work two jobs to make ends meet.

Answer 5

I am not sure there is a good answer for your question. Which ever you favor would depend on which side of the fence you are on.

But I do think that something, what or how, I am not sure, really needs to be done to make it a more equal playing field. After all just how much money can a person spend?

I think that the super rich should remember that the trash hauler, lawn worker, dishwasher, maids make their life much nice than if they had to do all the work themselves. I think the majority of "normal working" people would just like to have enough to pay our bills and pay for medical care.

Me, I don't think I want to be rich but would be nice to have enough to pay the bills and still eat without so much worry.

Answer 6

Theft, plain and simple. I notice people are willing to redistribute, by taxing the wealthy, as long as it is a tax bracket above what they personally make.

Has anyone noticed the more money you make the more money you spend? How come every time I drive by the local welfare office I see Escalades, Yukons, mainly new cars. The people are in designer clothes talking on flip phones. The people in this country have their priorities all messed up. My thirty year loan turned into a 5 1/2 year loan by paying off the bottom. I don't have a cell phone, or drive a new vehicle. My vehicle is 10 years old. I don't use credit cards or payday loans. I have money in the bank from hard work. I did not see anyone helping me start my businesses. I started with nothing and built them up until I could afford to hire people. It is called personal responsibility!

Answer 7

the real issue here is one thing...

could private charities handle the flood of people if government assistance was cut?

taxes would be cut, but would people give that money to a charity of their own choice? maybe some would, but not nearly enough....

I think they couldn't even come close to filling the need...

crime would skyrocket overnight... people just trying to get money for food... and fights over what little food and charity that is available...

no government housing would probably end up meaning that shanty towns would appear outside of every major American city, just like towns in Africa and India, where there is little government assistance...

the simple fact is... America wouldn't be nearly as nice if there were shanty towns outside of every city...

I think it's a pipedream to assume that everyone will be working and able to work at the same time... I'm not even sure we have the jobs...

I mean it's a nice thought, but not very realistic if you ask me...

have conservatives ever wondered why there is no "pure capitalistic" society out there? the reason is, it doesn't work...

Answer 8

In a dream and it is a nice thought ___BUT if you were to take the money from the rich what incentive would there be to work hard and get ahead in this country ? And the greed factor all you need is a small group in charge that will pocket the money. It would never get distributed.

Answer 9

Come on! Politicians who were/ are in office made enough money to pay off all the needs of the poor. Don't ask common workers to assume their guilt!
We live in a country disguised in 'democracy'. They have the money and the power, we just work hard, as much as bees. The kings are still around.
They should pay for the wrongs! Call it libs, dems, whatever.

Answer 10

let me ask you something.

let's say you lived at home with your parents and you have a job that you work very hard at and put long hours and alot of effort into. you come home sore. tired, drained, and dirty everyday only to have a few hours to yourself before you have to get to bed and get up the next morning to repeat the drill.

but when you get your paycheck, your parents take it and give half of it to your sibling who parties every night, sleeps til noon, and sits around all day watching tv or playing on the computer.

would you be happy with that??