AOC: A Society With Billionaires Cannot Be Moral

[petra22]

Additionally, there is concern that private charity will not have the capacity/capability or ability to reach those in need and thus the greater evil would be letting the needy go without over taking a portion of the taxpayer’s earnings (especially since let’s like many taxpayers are willing to part with their earnings but I can also see where this argument falls since they are also decided with other people’s funds).

I think part of the problem is that people collecting other people’s money seem to find ways to spend that money that said people did not authorize… Take the Wounded Warrior Project a few years ago. (It has been revamped and probably doing a better job now!) But the people at the top were taking trips on fuel guzzling jets to party islands and spending lavishly because the generosity of the American people was just too great to imagine, I guess… It’s my contention that the same thing happens when government collects taxes from the working folks… And it seems they want more and more and more and to get it they think up more “collective good works” to use the money for… now it’s a crime to even make money. Lord help you if you create a product (a new lunch bag, for example) that people want and buy. If you make too much money on your idea, (forget the fact that you had to hire employees to help you produce…which caused you to have salaries and overhead and insurance for employees…) you’re going to have to pay the tax fairy…
My question is “Who is going to want to be creative and achieve?” Why not just lay back and let the government cover you with free college, food stamps and medicare for all, not to mention free phones and phone service…

 

[empacae]

The MyPillow guy is a Christian,helps out the community, employs Americans and the pillow is actually really good. Sorry ad over.

 

[OneSheep]

Your sources prove that the vast majority of government spending doesn’t go to defense. Even this year, defense is roughly $700 billion out of a $4 + trillion budget.

I’m talking about our federal income taxes. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be self-paying systems, they are not the same as income taxes. In fact, the government has been for years taking money from those two sources to feed our military budget, etc. Of our income taxes, most goes to military spending.

No. Caesar is a metaphor for government.

Caesar is not a metaphor for democratic government.

There are many causes of poverty, “imbalance of wealth “ is not one of them. One of the structures happens to be the welfare state.

Well, just so you know that the Church generally disagrees with you.

Redistribution is theft, unless it is voluntary.

You have a point, but the public weighs the justice of the situation. Since redistribution benefits society as a whole, then it is fair that people who do not realize this are required to pay their fair share.

Some people will not donate to any cause, period, regardless of how much wealth they have. if people of that mindset are the ones who accumulate wealth in society, then we truly will have selected for a new feudalism.

I reject the mindset of requiring people to help the needy. “Required charity” is an oxymoron, kind of like “compulsory volunteerism”.

Okay, then don’t think of it as charity. Think of it as national security. If people have no hope, they resort to theft, violence, all sorts of other ills.

 

[JimG]

Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be self-paying systems, they are not the same as income taxes

If only Medicare and Social Security were actually self paying systems. But they are not.

 

[OneSheep]

If only Medicare and Social Security were actually self paying systems. But they are not.

As you may know, they would have been solvent if the feds hadn’t been taking money from them through the years.

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure if there is anything to take. Social Security benefits are not paid from what current retirees paid in. Current SS tax withholdings from current workers go to pay current retirees. Those retiring in the future will be paid from workers taxes at that time.

 

[JonNC]

I’m talking about our federal income taxes. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to be self-paying systems, they are not the same as income taxes. In fact, the government has been for years taking money from those two sources to feed our military budget, etc. Of our income taxes, most goes to military spending.

Again, the military doesn’t represent the “vast majority” of spending. Please go back and look at your own source.

Caesar is not a metaphor for democratic government.

It is regularly used that way, even in discussions here.

Well, just so you know that the Church generally disagrees with you.

Then the Church is mistaken. Tell me, how many people are poor specifically because Bill Gates is wealthy?
I would say there are perhaps hundreds of thousands who are better off because he is wealthy.
Again, I reject the zero-sum view of wealth , which is required to buy into the imbalance of wealth causes poverty notion. My level of wealth is primarily related to the choices I’ve made in my lifetime, how hard I’ve worked, the professions I’ve chosen, etc., not by how much money wealthy people have.

You have a point, but the public weighs the justice of the situation. Since redistribution benefits society as a whole, then it is fair that people who do not realize this are required to pay their fair share.

Then don’t claim it as just or moral, as it violutge Decalogue. Don’t say it is what Jesus expects of us. Just ends do not justify unjust means.

Some people will not donate to any cause, period, regardless of how much wealth they have. if people of that mindset are the ones who accumulate wealth in society, then we truly will have selected for a new feudalism.

So much for free will.

Okay, then don’t think of it as charity. Think of it as national security. If people have no hope, they resort to theft, violence, all sorts of other ills.

I don’t think of it as charity. I don’t believe it is compassionate. The welfare state has proven itself destructive. Thomas Sowell explains it well:

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.

 

[OnAJourney]

The labor theory of value is silly. The more work you put into producing something does not give it value. No matter how hard socialists and Marxists try to argue this point it just doesn’t ring true. Things have value depending upon how much someone is willing to pay for it and how much demand that thing has in the market.

 

[Annie]

Since redistribution benefits society as a whole, then it is fair that people who do not realize this are required to pay their fair share.

Is it true that redistribution helps society? Is it true up to a certain point?

And if we are going to force people to do good things they do not realize are good, what limits will the government have?

 

[OnAJourney]

Reminds me of those who can’t distinguish between the common good and a greater good. The common good is what we should all strive for. A greater good is the excuse of tyrants to reach a dystopian nightmare

 

[OneSheep]

Again, the military doesn’t represent the “vast majority” of spending. Please go back and look at your own source.

Okay, the word “vast” was overstated. Military spending is the majority of our discretionary spending.

OneSheep: Caesar is not a metaphor for democratic government.

That’s just silly. Caesar was the head of a dictatorship, not a democracy. The metaphor falls apart in the details. The only similarity is that it is a government, and Jesus told us to go ahead and pay taxes to an unjust government. Do you think that His contemporaries thought that paying taxes was just? Of course not. But Jesus told them to do it anyway.

The means/ends argument is very often far too simplistic.

Does that mean that Jesus was saying that unjust means can be used for unjust ends? Jesus was in part contrasting what “belonged” to Caesar with what “belonged” to the temple, which used a different currency, if I remember right. It’s like this, then: The Roman currency was earned under Roman “protection”, in a Roman economy. What was earned there carries the price of the “protection”, the economy of trade within the empire.

Taxes are simply payment for the structure that provides the framework for the economy. When someone gets the benefit without paying their fair share, then that person is indeed “stealing” from the society as a whole.

And look, we all have plenty of things to complain about where our taxes go. I have scoped out plenty of other nations to move to, but the fact is that I need to stay here taking care of family that I can’t bring with me.

But seriously, are you living on such an island that you can honestly say that anarchy would be an environment that would give you the same ability to earn money and have a quality of life?

The welfare state has proven itself destructive

Yes, but it was well-intended. This is the way we learn, we try something, we make mistakes, we learn. When we learn, we don’t go back to doing what we were doing before we were trying to solve the problem, we try something new, and sometimes that actually costs more in taxes.

 

[OneSheep]

Is it true that redistribution helps society? Is it true up to a certain point?

Yes, and yes. Is this what you are thinking too?

What the Church advocates is not equal wealth, but human rights such that all people have the right to food, shelter, medical care, the basics. The Church also advocates for the people to have the dignity of work and to be justly compensated.

And if we are going to force people to do good things they do not realize are good, what limits will the government have?

Some people do not have the awareness that without government, we would have anarchy and poison ourselves with pollution. Bigotry, nepotism, and all sorts of ills would go unchecked. There are many other benefits to having a government of which people are not aware, that is what I am saying.

In a democracy, the government is limited by what the majority of the electorate wants. If the government surpasses an acceptable limit, then people get voted out, and things change.

 

[qui_est_ce]

JonNC:

Don’t say it is what Jesus expects of us. Just ends do not justify unjust means.

That’s just silly. Caesar was the head of a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Rome was a republic, not a dictatorship:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The means/ends argument is very often far too simplistic.

It’s basic Catholic Doctrine.

But seriously, are you living on such an island that you can honestly say that anarchy would be an environment that would give you the same ability to earn money and have a quality of life?

That’s not what he said:

The welfare state has proven itself destructive

Yes, but it was well-intended. This is the way we learn, we try something, we make mistakes, we learn. When we learn, we don’t go back to doing what we were doing before we were trying to solve the problem, we try something new, and sometimes that actually costs more in taxes.

We learned our lesson, that’s why the welfare state needs to go. I’d prefer to give my money straight to the charity rather than through the federal government, which takes its own cut before distributing to the cause IT deems important.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What the Church advocates is not equal wealth, but human rights such that all people have the right to food, shelter, medical care, the basics. The Church also advocates for the people to have the dignity of work and to be justly compensated.

But how to achieve this has not been specified by the Church.

Some people do not have the awareness that without government, we would have anarchy and poison ourselves with pollution. Bigotry, nepotism, and all sorts of ills would go unchecked. There are many other benefits to having a government of which people are not aware, that is what I am saying.

In a democracy, the government is limited by what the majority of the electorate wants. If the government surpasses an acceptable limit, then people get voted out, and things change.

Who determines the acceptable limit? Dems want bigger and more government. I’d prefer more local government power.

 

[OnAJourney]

Local government is far more likely to respond to the constituents. I agree with you that we have way too much power concentrated at the federal level.

 

[ProVobis]

Dems want bigger and more government.

It’s about the same if you factor in farm subsidies, government flood insurance, and such.

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:

Dems want bigger and more government.

It’s about the same if you factor in farm subsidies, government flood insurance, and such.

Repubs aren’t much better.

 

[OneSheep]

It’s basic Catholic Doctrine.

If you read the rest of my argument, you can see that the situation is not so simple.

We learned our lesson, that’s why the welfare state needs to go. I’d prefer to give my money straight to the charity rather than through the federal government, which takes its own cut before distributing to the cause IT deems important.

Yes, that would be ideal.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Save up your money, learn a useful skill, invent something useful, invest wisely, and you, too, may become a billionaire.

That’s all it takes.

 

[OneSheep]

Who determines the acceptable limit? Dems want bigger and more government.

I don’t think the “dems” can all be lumped together in this way. AOC and her allies are talking about big changes in foreign policy such that we aren’t starting wars all over the place and getting involved in problems where we are supporting injustice.

Wouldn’t it be nice to take a chunk out of our military budget and put it towards dealing with the enormous problem of mentally ill people on our streets? And then, guess what? With less young people getting sent to be cannon fodder overseas, we will also have fewer mentally ill.
It’s a win-win!

This is not growth of government, it is a change in priorities.

I for one would like to see a balanced budget and debt-reduction every year! We have politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Donald Trump, who don’t seem to share that objective.

The title of this thread takes out of context what AOC is saying. We’re going to have billionaires, and there being such is not in itself an evil. Bill Gates and others have huge foundations doing a lot of good in the world. What is unjust is that there are a lot of loopholes for people who have enough money to use the loopholes.