Comments on: The problem with redistribution of wealth

By: gmarie

gmarie — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:27:06 +0000

I really dislike coercion. If you think about it, it doesn’t allow for the idea of freedom…the moving of the Spirit…His desire to prompt us to do for others.
In China when they were engulfed in a sea of algae during the Olympics, they had volunteers shoveling it out by the buckets. For those who didn’t volunteer, well they were ordered to!

By: dsteeger

dsteeger — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:22:07 +0000

Agreed…the country James Madison envisioned is strikingly different than what he and others dreamed of. Excessive government taxation which is what bought us from Europe in the first place. The “Intolerable Acts” seem like they are to be thrust upon us again by a government that cannot seem to quench their voracious appetite for spending.

http://www.youthpastorscoach.wordpress.com

By: casey

casey — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:05:21 +0000

Thanks for that info, criticalthinker.

By: criticalthinker

criticalthinker — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:59:32 +0000

"The real problem is what is spent on infrastructure (including defense), which to some degree are necessary evils." As far as defense is concerned it has only accounted for an average of 3.4% of the GNP of the United States in the last decade. Now this is on a budgetary level, "Since the middle 1980s, entitlement programs have accounted for more than half of all federal spending. Problem with socialism is it fails to take in the account of human mismanagement and creates a large red tape bureaucracy that ends up getting in the way of the very people it is trying to assist. Ever been in the military? Closest thing to a socialist commune the US has and it can be a nightmare getting what you need. All they have to manage is about 1.5 million people. And of course there are certain aspects of socialism in government and the economy. Just like there are aspects of free market mixed in with socialist and socialist leaning governments Look at China, Norway, Denmark, etc. However that in no way advocates a push or adoption of its flawed concepts.

By: casey

casey — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:38:29 +0000

Okay, now I’ve got a bit of time to respond. Here are my thoughts:
Regardless of how small the spending is on welfare, foodstamps, social security, medicaid, etc. (I didn’t check your numbers, but I’ll take your word for it), it still involves forcefully taking money from one person to give it to another. Mr. Williams’ illustration holds true.

As you mentioned, spending on infrastructure is a “necessary evil.” I don’t think conservatives would argue against this kind of spending, because without an infrastructure you can’t buy anything. Without a military, the country as a whole would be defenseless. Such things are used by everyone in the country, not just a select few.

What conservatives would argue against is waste. “Bridges to nowhere” and the like. I also think that the percentage taken from everyone should be the same, since these things benefit everyone. For example, even if you don’t drive on the highway, the trucks delivering your food to the grocery store do.

I’m no tax expert, and I haven’t even looked into the issue carefully (now maybe I will), so I can’t say that there shouldn’t be exceptions here and there or that I’ve got the perfect solution.

We’ve gone on a tangent here, but the point of Mr. Williams’ illustration is valid. It is wrong to forcefully take someone’s earnings and give them to someone else.

By: casey

casey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:32:52 +0000

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

By: JD Hill

JD Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:12:07 +0000

Social welfare are actions taken by governance to benefit the individual. Welfare, foodstamps, social security, medicaid, local bus service, etc are meant to help individuals. Total local, state & federal expenditures on social welfare have been consistently below 5% of Gross National Product. That’s not really much of an issue, when you consider total local, state & federal expenditures.

The real problem is what is spent on infrastucture (including defense), which to some degree are necessary evils. But then, there’s been a lot of waste from both sides of the political fence.

By the way, even conservatives should not insult socialism. If one drives on a freeway to whereever they choose, they do so at the bequest of D. Eisenhower’s brand of social conservatism. He was big on defense & infrastructure (as in freeways) and pretty damn good at it. A conservative who knew how to moderately redistribute.

Not too much, not too little. Just enough to put up a stable but growth economy with a reasonably high demand for labor.

Hope that helps.

jd hill

By: casey

casey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:24:32 +0000

Sorry, JD, but you lost me.

By: JD Hill

JD Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:38:51 +0000

No offense meant, but his analogy is all wrong. Mowing the elderly widow’s lawn is about social welfare and not a labor intensive infrastructure that would increase demand for labor while benefiting this great nation as a whole.

Might I add defense and the defense industry to that list of labor intensive infrastructure. Or the hydroelectric dams we once built. Should I go on or do you see the difference yet.

jd hill

By: casey

casey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:20:41 +0000

I think you’re missing the point, JD. Mr. Williams is using this simplified example as an illustration. He is most certainly also describing the graduated tax system you mention.