"Finally, this vision of equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all, is severely counterproductive economically, and so makes for a poor society as well. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above average production, income and wealth, which experience as well as theory shows us leads to less production.
"If income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? Savings and investment just adds to wealth, and wealth is anti-social under a social justice regime of equal wealth for all. Indeed, the only rational strategy for everyone under such a regime is to consume all income and not save or invest anything. For anyone who saves and invests more than others will see that savings and investment expropriated, and anyone who saves and invests less than others will be rewarded with a grant from the government to make their savings equal to all others.
"The only difference between the prosperity of modern industrial society and the subsistence living of cavemen is savings and investment. All the tools and equipment that enable us to produce more than what was enjoyed during caveman days come from investment, made possible by savings.
"Under a social justice regime of equal income and wealth for all, there would be no reason for anyone even to work. If you work more than others, and earn more income as a result, the above average results of all that work would be expropriated. If you don’t work at all, then you would receive a grant from whatever government might possibly be functioning so that you still consumed the same average amount of goods and services as everyone else.
"So under a social justice regime of equal income and wealth for all, the only rational strategy for everyone would be, literally, “Party till you drop.” Maybe this is why the Bible tells us that envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Observe the similar logical results under a strict regime of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” With above average ability taxed at a marginal tax rate of 100%, any such ability will be very hard to find. With all needs heavily subsidized, expect a cornucopia of such need.
(…)
"What we fail to understand in America today is how far down this road we have already gone. In 2007, before Barack Obama was even elected President, official IRS data revealed that the top 1% of income earners already paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. The top 1% paid over 40% of the federal income taxes, almost twice their share of national income. The top 3% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 97% combined.
"We see the same in some states. In California, the top 1% pay 48% of all state income taxes. In New York, the top 1% of income earners pay 41% of all state income taxes. In New Jersey, until recently the top 1% of income earners paid 46% of state income taxes, and Castroite government employee unions want to bring those policies back.
"Yet, President Obama has devoted his Administration to raising their taxes even more. In 2013, with the Bush tax cuts expiring, and the Obamacare tax increases becoming fully effective, the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax are already scheduled under current law to increase sharply. And in his 2012 budget, and in the debt limit debate, President Obama is proposing to raise taxes on the nation’s job creators, investors, and businesses large and small, even more."
[emphasis added]
The clueless Left thinks that the wealthy just illegitimately "have money", and it needs to be removed from them. For some, inheritance makes it true that they have money, but not illegitimately. For most of the wealthy, though, they have created their wealth and along with it, they have created jobs and wealth for others. This is of no consequence to the redistributionists; for them wealth is immoral, just because it exists.
For the wealthy Leftists (and there are many), though, most of their wealth is the result of parasitism on the spoils of the political system, with favored loans, marriage into wealth, political spoilage, and not paying the taxes which they actually do owe. Not to mention voting themselves favored tax rates for green technology and other similar schemes. So from their perspective, sure, wealth is illegitimate - theirs certainly is. If the Leftists were actually altruistic egalitarians, they would at least pay their taxes, and even shed their wealth into government coffers. But the Left is intractably elite, and no ethics stick to them: ethics are only for the masses, and ethics are what the elites declare they are for the masses.
When the wealthy Left asserts tax increases on industry, especially specifically hated industries such as oil, those taxes are paid by the non-wealthy average American. But they benefit the green, social justice industries, spreading wealth back to the Left.
All this seems obvious, but only the next election will determine how alert the rational voter is this time around, and how many non-rational egalitarian voters there really are. Will the Black bloc vote to maintain their residence on the Democrat plantation? Will the Hispanic bloc vote for amnesty for those extra-legals who want to get onto the Democrat plantation? It's a given who the Unions will vote for. And the corpses in the grave yards, as well as the cartoon characters registered by ACORN.
The election is too far off. I'm ready now.
26 comments:
"So under a social justice regime of equal income and wealth for all, the only rational strategy for everyone would be, literally, “Party till you drop.” Maybe this is why the Bible tells us that envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Observe the similar logical results under a strict regime of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
In practice, what that really works out as is: "From each according to our ability to coerce him, to each (of us) according to his position in the ruling elite."
The Socialists promise a free ride for everyone, but what they deliver is a very nasty form of Feudalism.
The clueless Left thinks that the wealthy just illegitimately "have money", and it needs to be removed from them.
I'm wondering how you could possibly know what "the Left" collectively are thinking? Is this what they've said? And where? Do you just pull this stuff out of your imagination?
"Will the Black bloc vote to maintain their residence on the Democrat plantation? Will the Hispanic bloc vote for amnesty for those extra-legals who want to get onto the Democrat plantation?"
I'm speechless.
KK
Do you not keep up with the news? The Dems want to tax the rich. It's in all the papers: "pay their fair share". Obama claims that there's a point where a person has enough (meaning that more is too much). The Left knows how much is "fair". They tell us all the time. Sorry if this is news to you...
Stan has mind reading skills so when members of the Democratic Party say the rich should also pay their fair share, Stan know they are thinking "wealth is immoral". Stan's mind reading fills this site.
At one point Stan seems to be saying that he's scared the Blacks and the Mexicans will take the rich white man's money away.
P.Logan
So unfair does not equal immoral? Leftist Dems equate that all the time. And the blacks and hispanics aren't the problem of course - the nanny statists (social engineers) of the Left are the problem. The Leftist Congress under Obama's first two years passed bulging programs that they couldn't pay for, and now they have to borrow and steal in order to pay their bills: total irresponsibility. But they do it for feel-good of their socialist emotional needs, and their self-endowed moral authority. They use other people's money as if it were their own, and they attach their moral imperative justification to show that it actually is their own, at least in their own minds, under their twist on "morals". Michael Moore has expressed what the Leftist Politicians act out: "it's not their money, it's our money!"
It doesn't take mind reading to hear and see what's going on with the Left. It takes a closed, emotion-driven worldview and mental facility for one not to hear and see it.
Sounds like someone has been listening to too much AM radio.
As someone who has actually lived in another country, you don't know what Socialism and "Leftists" are.
This country has two right-wing parties. One center-right and one right and quickly moving far-right.
I'd sure like to see someone actually defend the Federally forced sale of weapons to the cartel
murderers.
C'mon guys, defend it. Don't bother blaming it on the regular folk, they weren't involved. Defend the DOJ/ATF. I'm curious what your argument is.
As someone who lives in Texas, you don't know what right-wing and far right is. HA!
Mr Hobo,
Perhaps you could expand on that? My comments are on the post above...
That was simply a joke directed at Fireworx.
Yeah, some of the southern states are so far right they're practically fascistic.
*cough* Arizona *cough*
KK
Arizona will be shocked to hear that they are a "southern" state...
In what regard is Arizona "fascist"? Could it be because they would like to see existing laws obeyed... by the federal government? Is that your concept of fascism?
Maybe KK means "and don't even mention Arizona".
KK's probably just reacting to the Authoritarianism that permeates throughout those states.
His definition of Fascism is likely to be just as good as Stan's definition of Socialism.
Words have meanings. Everyone would be better off if everyone stuck to the real meanings of the words.
Atheists have recently redefined Atheism, and ridicule anyone who uses the dictionary meaning. The meaning of "meaning" has become corrupted by that sort of squishy relativism.
What do you suggest the real meanings of fascism and socialism to be? Is meaning connotation or denotation? Is it dictionary defined or culturally relative? If I take the time to specify the definition of a word as I intend the word to mean, but someone else merely uses a word, say derogatorily, why would one say that the definitions are value equivalent? Without his definition, equivalency cannot be known.
I stand by my definition of socialism as increased government control of individual behavior, moving (progressing, as understood by Progressives) inexorably toward totalitarian control. This movement is disguised by the claim of moral nondiscrimination, while overtly discriminating against those who protest the loss of their rights (as parents, as non-Materialists, as moral adherents): clearly a paradoxical worldview. (which I just commented on the newest post above).
To claim an absolute moral imperative to eliminate absolute morality from society is an internally non-coherent claim. If the moral imperative is not absolute, then it is either relative or it is false. If it is relative, then relative to what? absent any scientific-driven morality, it can be relative only to someone's personal opinion. Being opinion, it can be seen that it would be immoral to force it anyone else. But the imperative is to do exactly that: force that particular opinion on every one else.
Therefore the imperative is neither moral, nor categorical; it is false and specifically monolithically dictatorial.
Leftists want to tax. Taxs are redistrubuting the wealth. Redistrubuting the wealth is to practise socialism. So the Left is socialist because of there love of taxs, Left means every bad antifreedom politics. Right means freedom. Love your country.
Stan, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to understand basic political science.
Socialism, if you want to break it down to its most pure definition, is the belief that the means of production should be owned publicly, on the grounds that capitalism is inherently exploitative of workers. Leftists see things in terms of what sociologists call social bureaucracy, and relate it to issues of liberty and justice for all, rather than simply the size of government alone.
Example: George Orwell was a democratic socialist. Would you consider him in favor of totalitarianism?
Conservatives, meanwhile, see things from a cultural and moral perspective, and relate it to issues of liberty and justice for all. I would agree with your Burkean conservative skepticism of unlimited democracy and its unintended consequences. However, you can't just throw words around so loosely.
By the way, since we're invading political realms, one could argue that being forced by the government to do something that goes against your religious beliefs is on the same moral realm as conscientious objection. XD
By the way, since we're invading political realms, one could easily argue that not forced to do something that goes against your religious beliefs is conscientious objection. XD
It would seem that government owned means of production is a means, not an end. The end is supposedly "social justice", which is a more broadly and ill- defined egalitarianism.
But you are right, my comments are based on observations as well as dictionary definitions. So maybe there is a better definition? Progressives as they anachronistically call themselves now, are "progressing" toward something. It involves increasing governmental control in pursuit of something which they value. In the process they are trampling historical and traditional values and liberties.
What should one call that sort of political activity?
You said,
"...that not forced to do something that goes against your religious beliefs is conscientious objection."
Try as I might, I cannot connect a non-existent force to an overt action (an effect with no cause?). I must not be understanding your point. Could you elaborate please?
I was simply stating the inconsistency, irony, or hypocrisy of the Left to have the government force doctors to perform abortions, dspite their religious convictions. That comment was meant for the post on secular morality dominating.
Ah! OK.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying you can redefine the word "Socialism" because in your opinion "Atheists have recently redefined Atheism".
"Taxs are redistrubuting the wealth. Redistrubuting the wealth is to practise socialism"
All taxes are Socialism? Seriously?
"If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying you can redefine the word "Socialism" because in your opinion "Atheists have recently redefined Atheism".
I was responding to a prior comment at that point. At least I think I was. It was not intended as a justification, because the justification was made elsewhere. And at this point my thought is that what I have said about socialism is actually more along the line of the ultimate consequence of socialism (if the consequence is not prior economic failure). By which characteristic should a movement be defined? Its means? Or its stated objectives? Or its actual consequences?
Socialists can define themselves however they want. The National Socialists in Germany did not agree with the Soviet Socialists, both of which were totalitarian, or appeared that way to certain population segments. One seized the means of production, the other did not. One claimed to pursue justice for a race, the other claimed to pursue justice for a class. Both were bloody totalitarians with no regards for the deaths of millions of their own citizens... and that is the commonality of the aggressive socialist movements: they begin and are sustained by "useful idiots" pursuing moral ideologies and are then morphed into dictatorships when government control reaches a critical mass.
Now, one can say that the Soviets corrupted the meaning of "socialism", or that the NAZI's corrupted the meaning of "socialism", or that I have a corrupted meaning for "socialism". But the common factor amongst those who have pursued their own concept of socialism to the absolute limit is increased government control, and that to the point of totalitarianism. Some of the Democratic Socialist experiments are touted as flouting this trend. Perhaps. Their history is not over.
So in subsequent comments I asked for a better definition for American "Progressives", who are progressing toward something, presumably Social Justice, an amorphous but moral concept requiring government intervention.
Any suggestions?
"All taxes are Socialism? Seriously?"
I didn't make the comment but I will make one. The minute taxes are differentiated in order to favor a certain segment of the population or produce extra confiscation from another certain segment of the population, then the tax system has become a tool for social engineering. When the term "fair share" is used - as it is being used daily - it is an indication of social engineers deciding amongst themselves how the wealth should be divided up.
Certainly some taxes are justifiable. The national defense and international relations are a common interest to everyone. But social engineering is not a legitimate function of national government under the constitutional restriction of the 10th Amendment - long abandoned by the courts. When relativism seizes control, then there is no foundational base for any rational control of governmental powers.
Post a Comment