Can anyone explain to me what is "compassionate" about government wealth redistribution?

Question

By way of example: Person A works 10 hours per day for two weeks, earning $5K. Person B sits on the couch and does nothing. Person A is taxed $1,000 by the Federal government. Person B picks up a welfare check for $1,000. I hear from the left that this wealth redistribution is "compassionate", since it gives property to Person B to make up for the injustices that Person B has suffered at the hands of evil capitalists. My question is, how is this compassionate for Person A, the person whose property is taken to provide the "compassion"?

Answer 1

It's only compassionate if you believe that not every persone in this country has the ability to make it if they want to.  If you believe that the Rich are simply lucky and that the poor are unlucky, then it's very compassionate.

If you believe that people are wealthy because they've learned how to be and they've tried harder/smarter than others, and that the poor are that way because they haven't learned/tried enough, then it becomes clear that redistribution of wealth is indeed cruel and controlling because you have now taken away the incentive for the poor to strive and learn.  You have enabled them to be entrapped in thier current state.  You've also hurt the lower and middle class by incentivising the wealthy to horde their money instead of growing it.  When wealthy people horde their money, there is no trickle down effect (which contrary to many left wing ideas is a proven fact), the companies/business owners raise prices to compensate for the increased expenses, so the middle class pay more and get paid less/have less jobs.

The most compassionate things you can do for the poor/middle class is offer more incentives to become wealthy and lay off the financial states of the wealthy (since that the engine that drives the US economy).  It's all about education and incentives.  Two things this country has been destroying for a long time now.

Answer 2

Basically, there is no such thing as a fair redistribution of wealth.

Answer 3

If you're talking about money, it all belongs to the government.  The federal government allows its use by businesses and consumers to facilitate commerce.  If you're venting about unfair distribution, yeah you're right.  With money being essential to survival, it is ironic that some have so much of it that they can hardly see it that way.  You have people paying 6 figures for a panting or piece of jewelry.

Oh well, I have seen this monkey business before.  As lame as it is, I know you will choose as "Best Answer" one that parrots back to you --- your views of how hard affluence is.

Answer 4

its compassionate for Person A

because it imbues in him the sense of having

contributed to the betterment of Person B

who can continue to sit at home and drink

and pop pills and smile - knowing that uncle Obama

is in office for 4 years    woohooooooo

Answer 5

It's not.

If they cared so much about the poor they'd take money out of their own wallets, not the guy's next to them.

Commrade Addict: You live in a collectivist world view where everyone is responsible for everybody, and everybody own everyone else... Well, You need to leave me out of it! I'm not part of your "collective society". I'm an Individual and I'm entitled to my life, my freedom, and the money I work for... to spend is as I choose and give it to charity if I choose!

And if you don't like that I'm an individual, an end in myself and not a means to yours or anyone elses ends... You can go fornicate yourself with a metal stick!

Answer 6

There are less A voters than there are B voters.

It is a train wreck that is for sure.

Compassion is taking money from your wallet and contributing it to an organisation that will help people that need it.  The government doing it is just wrong.  Taking someone's money to give to another whether they are deserving or not is just wrong.

fs

Answer 7

Examples are easy, here's another one.  Person A works just as long and hard as he wants to as C.E.O. of Exxon Mobil for 13 years.  When he retires and adds his salary and his retirement package he finds he earned $28,000 per hour on which he paid 15% in income tax (assuming his accountants, lawyers or pet President didn't let him avoid taxes altogether).  Person B works 3 jobs (none full time because none of his employers want to be responsible for providing him with any benefits) at minimum wage, and finds he has cancer.  It's treatable, but since he has no health insurance and can't afford any...oh well, he dies.  Ah, the compassion of the free market.  You know, the idea that the rich are rich because they're superior, and the poor are poor because they're inferior isn't new.  It's called plutocracy.  It's a load of c**p, and there's not one atom of compassion in it.  When did you ever hear of Jesus, Gandhi, M.L.K. or any of history's peacemakers or wisemen say, "s***w the poor.  God bless the rich, and may they get richer."?

Answer 8

It isn't about compassion, it is about power. They tell you it's about compassion so you'll stomach it. If they said what it was really about, American's would rise up in rebellion.

That may happen anyway.

Answer 9

That is a rather extreme example.  Don't you think?

What if person B also works 10 hrs/day for 2 weeks, but only brings home $700 (minimum wage)?  What if that person has a kid that is ill, but obviously doesn't have health care.

I don't mind paying for that, or education loans, or low income housing, or food stamps.

That's compassion, son.  Or is that a different Bible you read?

Answer 10

The majority of the population are lazy sit on couch not work as hard as they can people.  Politicians need votes and play to the majorities so they tell people they will tax the rich and give to the poor.  Most like this because they arent rich even though they want to become rich they dont want to do the work to get them there.

Answer 11

If you take your case to its extreme then people should have to pay to send their kids to school. Some people could not afford to and others would simply choose to save the money. In no time you would be living in a state that would not be able to generate the sort of salaries that you are talking of ie $5k per two weeks.

You live inside a system, you just don't seem to realise it. Some systems attempt to distribute their collective wealth more evenly, more fairly. Others don't.

A few years ago I remember it being said, that there was not a single German billionaire. But if you look at National Income per Capita, the figure is much higher for the Germans than it is for the USA or UK.

Take a look at Jeremy Bentham and his theory of utility. In a nut shell, greater happiness is generated when the wealth of society is distributed fairly than when it concentrates itself in the hands of a small minority.

PROVE IT. Okay look at the social and criminal problems that are suffered by the USA and UK, gun crime, knife crime, gangs, unruly youth, huge prison populations. These problems are unknown in Germany. Germany is a very civilized very affluent country and I think we should follow its example. There are drug users in Germany aswell, but somehow it doesn't seem to escalate into the size of problem that we see in the USA and UK. The 'system' of the USA and UK is 'do nothing' unfortunately doing nothing turns around and bites and ends up costing a fortune.

Answer 12

Great Question........now can I have my stapler

Answer 13

There IS a redistribution of wealth going on today and it's all moving UPWARDS to those who need it least.

Doctors and Dishwashers: How the Nanny State Creates Good Jobs for Those at the Top

From 1980 to 2005 the economy grew by more than 120 percent. Productivity, the amount of goods and services produced in an average hour of work, rose by almost 70 percent. Yet the wage for a typical worker changed little over this period, after adjusting for inflation. Furthermore, workers had far less security at the end of this period than the beginning, as access to health insurance and pension coverage dwindled, and layoffs and downsizing became standard practices. In short, most workers saw few gains from a quarter century of economic growth.

The Workers Are Getting Uppity

Call In the Fed!

Much of the conservative nanny state’s economic policy is devoted to the principle of keeping doctors and other highly educated professionals in short supply, while at the same time keeping the supply of less-skilled workers plentiful. The Federal Reserve Board is one of the key nanny state tools for maintaining this imbalance. For this reason, it could have been included as a section in the last chapter. But the Fed, with its celebrity former chairman, the Maestro Alan Greenspan, is so important in this story that it deserves its own chapter.

The Secret of High CEO Pay and Other Mysteries of the Corporation

According to the conservative nanny state mythology (both the creationist and intelligent design variants), corporations were set on the earth at the same time as humans. They peacefully co-existed in the state of nature until the government stepped in and tried to interfere with the natural order by doing things like regulating and taxing corporations. The nanny state conservatives want the government to step back and allow corporations a freer hand to do what comes naturally: make profits. They rant about the threat posed by government regulation, and even worse “double taxation” — the fact that corporate profits are taxed when corporations earn the money, and then also taxed when they are paid out as dividends to shareholders.

Bill Gates — Welfare Mom

How Government Patent and Copyright Monopolies Enrich the Rich and Distort the Economy

Bill Gates, with his rise from modest affluence to incredible wealth, is one of the heroes of the conservative nanny state. A clever college dropout, he foresaw the massive growth of information technology and developed the computer operating systems that control the vast majority of personal computers in use around the world. As a result of his extraordinary insight and impressive business sense, he became the richest person in the world, amassing a fortune that approached $80 billion at one point. Now he is devoting much of his fortune and his energy to aiding the world’s poor, financing research into the treatment of tropical diseases, and paying for millions of poor people to get vaccines and treatment that they could not otherwise afford.

Mommy, Joey Owes Me Money

How Bankruptcy Laws are Bailing Out the Rich

In a free market economy, businesses know that investment decisions don’t always work out as expected. Sometimes businesses invest in developing a product that turns out not to be as good as they believed, or that doesn’t have the market they anticipated. They may invest based on trends, such as rising oil prices, that do not continue, leaving them with large losses. Or, they may extend credit to people, businesses, or countries that turn out to be bad credit risks. No one expects that the government will step in and sustain the demand for a bad product. Nor do we expect the government to intervene to make sure investors’ expectations about rising oil prices are realized, for example, by buying up massive amounts of petroleum. But when it comes to making bad credit decisions, the nanny state conservatives do expect the government to step in and bail them out.

The Rigged Legal Deck

Torts and Takings (The Nanny State Only Gives)

In recent years, the nanny state conservatives have taken aim at the country’s legal system. One of the arch-villains in their mythology is the trial lawyer. According to the nanny state conservatives, trial lawyers can make 12 otherwise reasonable people award ridiculous amounts of money in damages when they sit on a jury in a court case. In the conservative nanny state mythology, activist judges are their accomplices, allowing trial lawyers to inflict harm on the productive segments of society.

Small Business Babies

The vast majority of small business owners in the United States are honest hard-working people who are trying to make a better life for their children than the one they have. This is also true of the people who work as dishwashers, housekeepers, and custodians. The big difference between the two groups is that small business owners earn more money, on average, than dishwashers, housekeepers, and custodians, and they hold a more favored spot in conservative nanny state mythology. As a result, small business owners can count on a wide range of special benefits from the government, including low interest loans, special tax breaks, and exemptions from a wide range of health and safety regulations that are intended to protect workers, consumers, and the environment.

Taxes: It’s Not Your Money

Many nanny state conservatives seem to view taxes as voluntary contributions to the government, similar to contributions to an art museum, rather than a fee that people are required to pay in exchange for the benefits of government services. As a result, they feel the need to coddle tax evaders, giving them the opportunity to pay only as much tax as is convenient.

Don’t Make Big Business Compete Against Government Bureaucrats

In the conservative nanny state mythology, the government is run by hopelessly inept bureaucrats who bury everything they touch with red tape. As a result, almost by definition the government is wasteful and inefficient. The term “government boondoggle” is redundant. By contrast, the private sector is full of hardworking, energetic, innovative people. It’s the land of sink or swim; those who don’t have what it takes get pushed by the wayside. The forces of competition assure us that the private sector will quickly innovate to improve quality and lower cost.

Answer 14

Person B doesn't get $1,000, person B is lucky if he picks up a check for $300 for him and his wife and two kids. Person B is 45 years old and no one will hire him because he's too old. He used to make 60,000 a year. Any job that he's looking at is 20,000 a year even with his qualifications, but they don't want someone that old.