AOC: A Society With Billionaires Cannot Be Moral

[OneSheep]

If you’re hopeful that people who don’t pay taxes help others , why can we not extend the same courtesy to those that do? Why force them to help others when we know that type of coercion is wrong?

The point is that the “coercion” is not wrong, it is getting people to pay their fair share, and “fair” means that the more they earn, the more they are benefiting from the economic structure. This is just, not wrong. Someone benefiting from the system but not paying their fair share is wrong.

Yes, I see that you do not have a problem with people paying taxes, but you have a problem with redistribution of wealth. The fact is, through the capitalist structure, wealth is being redistributed upwards. Labor unions are indeed capitalistic, but they have lost their power. There will be some change coming on that eventually.

And yes, there are truly people who have had hard luck and/or are in a temporary position of not being able to support themselves and their families, our society wants there to be a safety net for them.

I think we can agree that the safety net in itself has some big problems to solve.

"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth,encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,"he wrote, in a direct rebuttal of the theory espoused by free-market thinkers that wealth eventually benefits the whole of society.

“This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system.”

Pope finds a new enemy—capitalism

Pope Francis' criticism of the "crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power" reflects a mistrust of unfettered capitalism

www.cnbc.com

Note: The title of the article does not represent the Pope’s stance.

People are “coerced” into paying for groceries at the grocery store. If they do not, it is called theft.

 

[OneSheep]

Yet every time those who believe as I do propose, we are called (by some) uncaring, evil, even unchristian

I have not heard your proposal. What is your proposal?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Diplomatic power comes with military power, they are not two totally unrelated things. And one does not need to advocate for the routine invasion of foreign countries to support a robust military.

For example, Russia would dearly like to snap up its former sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. It has already taken chunks of Ukraine. It is eyeing the Baltic states and has been using economic pressure to warrant military intervention to “secure” oil refineries and pipelines that Russia itself threatened. Russia would also like Poland to be under its influence again, as it has historically been. What stops Russia from furthering these takeovers? The military threat of the US and NATO. Poland has been investing heavily in its military and in US technology and equipment specifically because of Russia. Sovereignty and diplomacy go hand in hand with military power.

Again, I think it is perfectly rational and legitimate to believe that we should leave Eastern Europe to the Russians, Asia to China, etc, that it isn’t our business. All I am saying is that there are trade offs.

 

[JonNC]

The point is that the “coercion” is not wrong, it is getting people to pay their fair share, and “fair” means that the more they earn, the more they are benefiting from the economic structure.

You continue to miss my point. It isn’t fair share when it involves wealth redistribution.
The more they earn, might relate more to the choices and effort. I chose a field that isn’t particularly high paying. My choice.

This is just, not wrong. Someone benefiting from the system but not paying their fair share is wrong.

No one has said people shouldn’t pay their fair share. The wealthy pay far more than their fair share. When some people claim they are not, it is a false witness against them.

Yes, I see that you do not have a problem with people paying taxes, but you have a problem with redistribution of wealth.

Thank you for noticing.

The fact is, through the capitalist structure, wealth is being redistributed upwards.

Based on effort and choices, by and large. Socialism, on the other hand, pushes poverty on everyone but the ruling class.

And yes, there are truly people who have had hard luck and/or are in a temporary position of not being able to support themselves and their families, our society wants there to be a safety net for them.

Temporary is one thing. The welfare state has facilitated inter generational dependency.
But why must it be government that provides the safety net? More specifically, why the general government when it has proven itself incapable of effectively doing it?

People are “coerced” into paying for groceries at the grocery store. If they do not, it is called theft.

This comment reveals no understanding of basic exchange. The grocer and I have an agreement when I buy. I exchange what I’ve earned for what he owns to sell. We both determine that the exchange is fair, or we don’t make it. If I perceive a jar of peanut butter to be worth the price the grocer has already decided he wants in exchange, we have a deal. No one is coerced. She can sell to someone else. I can go down the street to another grocery store.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Yet every time those who believe as I do propose, we are called (by some) uncaring, evil, even unchristian

I have not heard your proposal. What is your proposal?

Get government out of the charity business and let charities and the Church care for the needy.

 

[petra22]

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.

Isn’t this simple jealousy? You have it. I can’t make that much. YOU MUST share what you have??? Even Jesus doesn’t use this argument.

 

[OneSheep]

Diplomatic power comes with military power, they are not two totally unrelated things.

Diplomacy with “military power” in mind is already a military mindset. Diplomacy does not have to have a military mindset.

And one does not need to advocate for the routine invasion of foreign countries to support a robust military.

Given that our military budget is more than that of the next 10 or so nations combined, it is my opinion that our military is far more robust than it needs to be, as the military industry lobbyists have paid our congress to make it so.

For example, Russia would dearly like to snap up its former sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Well, we need not fear. Russia does not “snap up” areas where the local citizenry (by ethnicity/national identity) do not generally favor such adjoining. The Polish want to remain autonomous, and so do the Baltic states. So yes, NATO remains a military hindrance, but it seems like Russia is also generally respecting the locals’ desire for autonomy.

No one wants to turn Eastern Europe into a war zone, more than it already is.

Europe can “foot the bill” for more of NATO’s costs.

Our military budget is ridiculous, and because it is so high, other nations are compelled to raise theirs. I imagine a world where all military budgets, which in themselves are a form of posturing, go progressively lower as World Priorities move toward human rights and environmental concerns. Efforts addressing these priorities are what makes the Kingdom, not increased ability and preparation to kill one another.

Is this not obvious to the person who is committed to Love, to creating true harmony in the world?

 

[OneSheep]

Get government out of the charity business and let charities and the Church care for the needy.

Well it is a good idea, of course, but the problem is that such was the means of dealing with need of a “safety net” and poverty before welfare programs began, so something new has to happen to keep us from going back to where we were.

For example, European nations are superior to the US in channeling young people into careers. If we could prioritize this in our education budget, we could be getting “welfare kids” out of the welfare mindset and have them gearing toward a good trade or college early on.

People, by nature, want to use their gifts/abilities to better themselves and society.

I can go down the street

Here’s the thing. You did not negotiate the construction of the street, you did not directly have a say in paying for it, even though you benefit from having the street there. People, represented in government, decided that they want the street, and yes, since everyone benefits, decided that everyone has to pay their fair share. In addition, since some people using the street earn far more money than others, it has been determined that those people pay higher percentage taxes over certain levels. It’s not a perfect system, but getting rid of a lot of loopholes would help make it more fair.

And those who use the street without to helping pay their fair share are indeed stealing, in society’s view.

Sure, there are plenty of things that the government spends money on that I would rather not support! I don’t mind paying for streets and building inspectors, I do mind paying for increased ability to kill people in other nations. So in that sense, my taxes that go toward most of the military budget are indeed “coerced” out of me, most of the rest I would pay voluntarily.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could select where your tax dollars couldn’t go, for ethical reasons? After all, the welfare system, to the degree that it creates generations of dependent people (or turning capable people into dependent people), is unethical.

 

[OneSheep]

You continue to miss my point. It isn’t fair share when it involves wealth redistribution.
The more they earn, might relate more to the choices and effort. I chose a field that isn’t particularly high paying. My choice.

The wealthy pay far more than their fair share.

Yes, people make choices, and the electorate generally agrees that “fairness” looks like those who make more money in this economy pay more taxes, by percent, for the amounts over each level of earnings increase. It makes sense. I see that you are thinking that “the wealthy” pay more than their fair share, and AOC is thinking the opposite. Everyone has a different opinion on this.

When some people claim they are not, it is a false witness against them.

Wow, that’s some pretty hefty finger-pointing! Well, encourage those folks to go to confession!

Socialism, on the other hand, pushes poverty on everyone but the ruling class.

This is not the case in European countries that are more socialistic than we are here in the US.

Temporary is one thing. The welfare state has facilitated inter generational dependency.
But why must it be government that provides the safety net?

Because the electorate favors it, it makes sense for the government to tackle these big societal problems. It is the purpose of government to deal with these types of issues.

The government, at least in theory, is “us”, dealing with the problem of poverty.

More specifically, why the general government when it has proven itself incapable of effectively doing it?

Most people have not given up on believing that our government can work toward solving the problem of generational welfare dependence. You have. I have not. We need to show children a way out of the welfare cycle, and really help them find good jobs where they can be successful.

 

[JonNC]

Well it is a good idea, of course, but the problem is that such was the means of dealing with need of a “safety net” and poverty before welfare programs began, so something new has to happen to keep us from going back to where we were.

Back to where we were. You mean before the current out-of-wedlock birth rateand inter generational dependence on government? That would be a good thing.

For example, European nations are superior to the US in channeling young people into careers. If we could prioritize this in our education budget, we could be getting “welfare kids” out of the welfare mindset and have them gearing toward a good trade or college early on.

Source.

People, by nature, want to use their gifts/abilities to better themselves and society.

The best way to do that is get government out of the way.

And those who use the street without to helping pay their fair share are indeed stealing, in society’s view.

And yet close to half pay no income taxes.
That said, you are mixing the general welfare with individual welfare. Anyone can you that street. There is no means test. Social welfare programs typically have a means test. That’s the difference.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could select where your tax dollars couldn’t go, for ethical reasons?

That’s supposed to already have taken place at the federal level. It is called the constitution.

 

[OneSheep]

Source.

Concerning… that European nations are better at channeling the youth into careers? Have you ever talked to people from Europe?

The best way to do that is get government out of the way.

The government provides an education system, which actually helps young people develop their skills and better society.

And yet close to half pay no income taxes.

Is this something you resent, that poor people pay little or no taxes?

That said, you are mixing the general welfare with individual welfare. Anyone can you that street. There is no means test. Social welfare programs typically have a means test. That’s the difference.

Please clarify.

That’s supposed to already have taken place at the federal level. It is called the constitution.

I mean that it would nice to have “check boxes” for which I could say where my taxes go, and not go!

 

[MonteRCMS]

For example, European nations are superior to the US in channeling young people into careers.

Possibly true … but once channeled people are also unable to change careers.

In the United States, people can get education at any age.

 

[OneSheep]

Isn’t this simple jealousy? You have it. I can’t make that much. YOU MUST share what you have??? Even Jesus doesn’t use this argument.

Jealousy is the common accusation when people with less wealth want people with more wealth to pay a higher percentage.

Not sure how you got that out of my statement, though.

 

[OneSheep]

Possibly true … but once channeled people are also unable to change careers.

Well, they can and do change careers, but they always have a fall-back. When we are talking about getting people out of the welfare cycle, it stands to reason that a person will prefer any career over welfare.

In the United States, people can get education at any age.

They can in Europe also, at least the people from nations I have talked to. The great thing is that their first education is generally paid for by the government. If they want a new career, they have to pay for it just like we Americans do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, we need not fear. Russia does not “snap up” areas where the local citizenry (by ethnicity/national identity) do not generally favor such adjoining. The Polish want to remain autonomous, and so do the Baltic states. So yes, NATO remains a military hindrance, but it seems like Russia is also generally respecting the locals’ desire for autonomy.

Tell that to the Ukraines and Russians who were deported to Siberia for daring to resist the collectivization efforts by USSR.

Tell that to the Hungarians in 1956.

Tell that to the Poles September 1, 1939.

 

[OneSheep]

Russia is not the USSR.

Look, Russia is not a “good player” in the world, generally speaking, but their government is a lot more moral than the USSR.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Russia is not the USSR.

Look, Russia is not a “good player” in the world, generally speaking, but their government is a lot more moral than the USSR.

Same story, different actors.

Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Tensions are rising between Ukraine and Russia. Get the latest news as Moscow steps closer to Ukraine and allies in the West respond to the situation.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[qui_est_ce]

Look, Russia is not a “good player” in the world, generally speaking, but their government is a lot more moral than the USSR.

Governments are amoral.

 

[OneSheep]

Governments are amoral.

Governments are groups of people, and people have a morality.

Same story, different actors.

If you are comparing that international sparring with what the Soviets did to millions of people, you cannot possibly be calling that the “same story”.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Governments are groups of people, and people have a morality.

So are the people of China immoral because their government forces abortion?