Why not wealth redistribution?

Welfare isn't meant "to live off of" indefinitely.

It's a stop gap. Safety net.

So the answer is no. And rightfully so.

 

I agree with you. This guy's argument is different however and I wish to expose how inadequately shallow and absurd it is.

 

In the 1930's Congress identified a serious problem. Roughly 1/2 of the people at retirement age had not accumulated enough personal wealth (assets) to provide income when they were too old to work and earn a living. Congress, instead of addressing the problem of a lack of wealth accumulation during the working career of the person, created Social Security that provided income that was just the symptom of the problem. Social Security "mitigated" the effects of the problem by providing income but failed to address the problem which was a lack of personal wealth accumulation. We know that the problem continued because in the 1960's Congress found that 1/2 of the people at retirement age had not accumulated enough personal wealth to provide the income to pay for private health insurance when they retired. Once again it addressed the symptom (a lack of wealth accumulation) by creating Medicare to provide the health insurance.

You don't fix a problem by addressing the symptoms of the problem and, in fact, the problem only become worse.

I've addressed the "problem" that Congress identified in the 1930's with the following proposal:

This proposal, that takes the 40-45 year working career of the person required for transition, creates personal wealth providing at least four-times the retirement benefits of our current Social Security program. This is true even for the "safety-net" that would provide $30,000/yr as opposed to about $7,000/yr as the minimum retirement income. Even a minimum wage worker would expect about $55,000/yr in retirement income based upon private investments and no one would receive less than $30K/yr. It also eliminated Medicare because the person could afford private health insurance at retirement age. With the elimination of Medicare the "safety-net" for medical insurance would be Medicaid.

Because the person is fully vested in their private retirement accounts if they die before they retire the wealth they accumulated while working goes to their heirs. This increases the wealth accumulation from one generation to the next reducing poverty dramatically in the United States. The proposal becomes financially stronger from one generation to the next as opposed to weaker which is what we have with Social Security today.

It is financially viable and eliminates the projected financial failure of Social Security where either the benefits must be slashed by 25% or the taxes increased 33% just to provide the same poverty level benefits (i.e. the $7,000/yr minimum benefit is poverty level) through 2085.

It is a solid plan that, because of the safety-net that is four-times greater than today, even liberals have expressed support for. Conservatives have also expressed support because at the end of the transitional period it basically reduces the size and costs of government by about 1/3rd and it does so with the accumulation of wealth based upon the labor of the person eliminated "wealth redistribution" that this thread addresses.

If we want to end "wealth redistribution" then the best way to accomplish this is by allowing a person to keep more of the wealth they create. That is what my proposal on Social Security does and that is why I propose major tax code revisions at both the federal and state level to dramatically reduce the tax burden from the bottom 50% of income earners.

A major misconception today by most conservatives is that they claim that Welfare has not reduced poverty but fail to understand that it was never designed to do that. Welfare assistance merely mitigates the effects of poverty (i.e. it addresses a symptom of poverty) but does not address the problem which is the poverty. We need proposals like the one I offer for Social Security and for tax code revisions that reduce the poverty because if poverty is reduced then the necessity for welfare assistance (wealth redistribution) to mitigate povery is reduced.

 

A proposal that neither Democrats or Republicans support.

Democrats oppose it because it uses financial coercion to force a woman to have an abortion.

Republicans oppose it because it would require supporting abortion.

 

Not sure if you have a clue about SSI tax. The payroll tax is matched evenly from the employer and employee. Who would be the one that picks up the bill when the employees get the free ride?

 

thats nice, did you even read the comment i left? because it had nothing to do with abortion.

 

But i have seen many people that do live off it and so do their children when they became adults.

 

For me, redistribution violates the basic right to property. The quest for human rights has gone on for millennia, & it has been the common man's struggle to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. Redistribution is a step backward in that quest. It is using crime & violence to counter what should be done with level playing fields & govt protection of the little guy, instead of being complicit with the exploiters.

 

.
But the basic right of property has always been subject to the will of the state which not only has been able tax all property, but also take to away.

More like 50 years.

That's a very convoluted and ideologically skewed notion of the welfare state. I disagree with it.

 

Care to answer my question at post #239?

 

No, the basic right of property is something people have always had.. that & life are the basics ones. Every society has protected those basic rights, or it crumbles, & one that does takes its place. Yes, thieves can gain power, & use force to steal & kill, but if the people get the power, like after the american revolution, they protect life & property.

The world has been around for a bit longer than that. I see the quest for individual freedom as a constant thread in history.. from the israelites reducing LAW into written form, to the magna carta, the reformation, & even the great revolutions of the world.. russia, france, america.. Liberty!, Life! Freedom from oppressive thieves & scoundrels.. these were the goals & dreams of the people, & still are.

You only draw a conclusion about redistribution, which is, in it's most basic form, a violation of the rights of property. The welfare state is a much bigger issue, with a lot more complexity & hidden agendas.. But the basics of redistribution are still flawed. ..and the reason it NEVER lasts in any society. Any culture that relies on theft from the producing members of society always collapses on itself.

 

we aren't at 239 yet

- - - Updated - - -

if you meant 216 the answer to your question has already been discussed.

 

Are you referring to the modern theory of property stemming from John Locke in the 17th century?

Yeah but they've never been as clear cut or consistent as you describe. For most of human history people have had other people as their property ie slaves. Is that the property you are defending? I don't think so. Point is, concepts of property are relative.

That is just plain wrong and they don't do that at all - again US had slavery is a perfect example.

Modern human rights havent.

But these goals are nether similar nor consistent. Upon escaping Egyptian captivity, the Israelites genocidally wiped out other tribes for not following the same god and created a state of violent patriarchy (if we believe the bible). The magma carta divested power from the king to nobles but left peasants without significant let alone equal personal property rights or a right to vote. The reformation left Jews isolated politically and forced them into socially constrained professions - not to mention persecution of other minorities; it simply saw the fragmentation of catholic unity in Europe. Most ridiculously of all - how can you possibly compare the ideals of 'freedom' sought in the bourgeoisie revolutions of America and France with the socialist revolution of Russia? Even still how can you compare the very 'rights for British-men' origins of colonial America's pursuit of 'freedom' that still left thousands enslaved, with a movement against near feudal monarchy that resulted in another monarchical system through constant sociopolitical plutocratic transformations in 18th and 19th century France?
These historical events you describe have little to do with the 'freedom' you enjoy or endorse today - they are all instances of people pursuing political agendas sometimes argued as 'freedom' or some such but look nothing like what people today would describe as freedom. Some are certainly similar or linked but ALL of them are different.

But if the rights of property are defined by the state and society, and then if society and the state changes property rights to include redistribution, then there is no violation - property rights have just changed.

I agree.

Really? its never existed until the 20th, and none of the states that have implemented it extensively have failed yet because of it.

That is factually and historically incorrect. Name ONE society that collapsed BECAUSE of welfare. Was it not Franklin that said two things in life are CERTAIN - taxes and death? He adequately refutes your assertion.

 

Ill restate my question;

Could you personally and with satisfaction, live your whole life only on welfare?

 

not unless i was disabled

 

What do you mean?

 

Yes, I read your post. A woman that was on welfare that became pregnant would face economic coercion to have an abortion because she would lose her welfare benefits if she has the child. If the woman must have an abortion to continue to receive welfare benefits then the government needs to provide the abortion services.

Always remember that "pregancy" is rarely a choice of the woman to begin with. The only choice most women have is to either have the child or have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy.

 

republicans aren't the ones making abortion readily available to anyone at anytime.
pregnancy is rarely a choice? i dont know where you got that from but i only a stupid person would rather coerce irresponsibility and then pay them for it.

 

Let me guess, you are the one who gets to determine what is "excess"?

"Cannot obtain". LMAO. Victimization non-sense.

Why stop there? Why not just have government intervene and give everybody the exact same buying power? Certainly, that wouldn't result in productivity plummeting, lack of innovation, and failure of people to be self sustaining.

/sarcasm

Absolute unfettered stupidity.

I think that its ethical that people get off their lazy fat asses and help contribute to the society they enjoy. In fact, I think they should be compelled to do so, and if they don't, they don't deserve the benefits that society provides for the collective.

 

You are devoid of reality.

Wealth redistribution, primarily through social programs, is designed primarily to make sure people aren't dying in the streets.

Your idea of equality simply doesn't consider that varying levels of success promotes progress, innovation, and self reliance.

If you simply can't understand that GIVING everybody equality will create a collective of lazy people that are dependent on everybody else to take care of them, you simply aren't in touch with the reality of human nature.

Or.. you are a troll. I haven't figured it out yet.

 

what do you think i meant?

 

Exactly, very good. I never said we should all have the same things, or well, if it was a very high standard for everyone nobody would complain ain't it? But since we cannot do so, let's at least make so that there are no more huge peaks compared to miserably low ones. As for the rest i am fine with people being richer than me, having a bigger house, car or wtf else could be.

 

I already defined it.

What makes you say that?

Is there a question or argument there? If so can you point is out?

How so? Slogans aren't arguments mate. Also that's an insult.

What if they cant?

What logic/rationale justifies that philosophical position?

 

Could you elaborate on what you mean? Are you saying you'd only find welfare satisfying to live off if you were disabled?