Wealth redistribution doesn't achieve its intended purpose
I am constantly amazed when liberals accuse conservatives of not wanting to help poor people. When conservatives complain about taxes, the fact of the matter is, they are just trying to keep more of the money they have earned to do with as they please, which includes giving to charities and otherwise helping others in need.
Liberals ignore this and instead want the money taken from them by the government who will then (supposedly) use it to help the poor and needy. In so doing, the liberal politicians vilify those they take the most money from and expect a pat-on-the-back from those they give the money to. The pat-on-the-back expected takes the form of votes for the politicians who stand beaming in front of the crowds and act as if the money for the poor is their own. The process of taking the money and redistributing it involves much waste and inefficiency since bureaucrats manage the process. So ask yourself this question. If those being helped could not vote (like the unborn), would these liberal politicians still help? Also, when the source of the help is a government agency versus a private charity, how often do those helped change their lives so as not to need more help? In other words, how’s that working out for us?
— Art Godfrey, Ypsilanti
Comments
outdoor6709
Fri, Nov 11, 2011 : 1:36 a.m.
Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy. What do they have in common? They thought taxing and overspending would make everyone happy. Instead it just made them broke. The US is $15 trillion in debt and counting. Why do we think the end result be any different?
Don B. Arfkahk
Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 5:03 a.m.
Under capitalism, economic output is used to blow up other economic output and prop up my fantastic standard of living. The workers are allowed to rot. Dog eat dog world! Under socialism economic output is shared. Sharing may be caring but I don't care for it at all. Why would anyone work hard if it didn't mean you got to watch people starve on the streets through the tinted windows of a Mercedes Benz? Where is the motivation without that? I have never seen anyone do anything simply to help another. As the Bible tells us, humans are evil, so I think we need to perpetuate this system to maximize the worst in us so that I may prove my point.
A2.com.user
Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 4:57 a.m.
Dedicating a portion of your democratic government to helping the poor, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, minorities and the environment is not communism or socialism...it's called compassion and caring. Turning your nation over to the rich while discarding basic democratic principles of fairness, is called insanity and greed. Every greedy nation that defines good as increasing/maximizing profits at all costs, will fall....and fall hard. God is not concerned about how much is in your bank account, he's concerned about how much is in your heart. The assumption being made here is that everyone is generous and compassionate, including the rich, and will give freely to the poor if not pressured by our democratic government or "we the people". Although a few wealthy people may be very generous, they cannot make up for the billions in tax dollars which now go to support the poor, the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped, as well as historically excluded minority groups in the U.S...... through our tax dollars. I, for one, consider the portion of my taxes which go to help the poor/disadvantaged and the elderly in my country as a blessing to me, and to the greater U.S., and I'm thankful that I live in a country which is heavily involved in being compassionate to those less fortunate than I. I appreciate private charity but they do not possess the manpower, or the democratic decision making, which our federal, state and local governments do through our vote.....so these private charities are only as good as the person, or small number of board members running it. Private charity money is also sporadic and often dries up, whereas tax money is a dependable source of funding, which is not subject to the whims of people's charitable sensibilities.
james
Fri, Nov 11, 2011 : 10:52 p.m.
"Dedicating a portion of your democratic government to helping the poor, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, minorities and the environment is not communism or socialism...it's called compassion and caring. " We already have many programs in the US for helping everyone in this list. Yet, it's not enough. It's never enough. The problem is that once a group of people start to rely on government handouts, there's no way to stop it, even when the money is gone. We need to teach the poor how to make something of themselves rather than only enabling them through government entitlements. People that can't work (IE: mentally handicapped or elderly) should be able to get help through the government, but this is a very small percentage of our overall population. "Every greedy nation that defines good as increasing/maximizing profits at all costs, will fall....and fall hard. God is not concerned about how much is in your bank account, he's concerned about how much is in your heart. " I laugh when I see statements like this. It's bad to maximize profits, yet it's fine to take money by force from successful people and hand it over to the poor. You do also realize that without profits, there would be no money to give to the poor, right?
Don B. Arfkahk
Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
My success exists in a vacuum and has no bearing on the fortunes of others.
james
Fri, Nov 11, 2011 : 10:41 p.m.
well, Don, I expect the government to give me handouts rather than working for a living. The people that actually worked for it don't deserve it.
Mike K
Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
It would seem that liberals like an easy solution. Confiscate earnings from the rich via taxation, and give it to lower earners. Never mind any systemic issues such as inflationism or corporatism. Their motto,"you got it, I want it - period." It is saddening but American public seems to be buying the demogoguery villifying those that succeed.
Don B. Arfkahk
Sun, Nov 6, 2011 : 10:51 p.m.
I agree. I potentially could give vast sums of money to charity, though probably not so much after I'm done with my yacht purchases and my $500 a second wine slamming habit. Cut taxes for me. I want to upgrade to $1000 of wine a second. Those handful of weirdo millionaires can continue to give to fundamentalist religious anti-union charities like Salvation Army while I and most of my counterparts enjoy the fruits of our success at the expense of others.
james
Fri, Nov 11, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.
You've given me a good chuckle Don. It really makes me realize that some people have no concept of the real world. I'm thinking it's from spending too much time in liberal academia.