Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not just the society, but God. People have different innate abilities, were born under different circumstances, etc. Most people aren't capable of "earning" millions of dollars, no matter how hard they work.
In addition to their own efforts, which cannot be discounted, the wealthy are wealthy because of their natural gifts and the gift of a society that makes it possible.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's your philosophy. Who said it?
Marx, the son of a Jewish convert to Lutheranism, was paraphrasing the voluntary arrangement of the first Christians as described in the Acts of the Apostles. No one here is suggesting (I hope) that the wealthy be taxed according to their full ability to cough up money.
Not just the society, but God. People have different innate abilities, were born under different circumstances, etc. Most people aren't capable of "earning" millions of dollars, no matter how hard they work.
The converse is true, as well. There are people who are fully capable of earning millions of dollars who nevertheless, don't. Blows your theory of any self-made high achiever being "given" anything they didn't earn.
Marx ...paraphrasing the voluntary arrangement of the first Christians as described in the Acts of the Apostles.
No. He was critiquing what he thought was a too slow and subtle conversion to communism that was stuck instead in socialism. He was advocating the superiority of communism with this slogan. Critique of the Gotha Programme
The converse is true, as well. There are people who are fully capable of earning millions of dollars who nevertheless, don't. Blows your theory of any self-made high achiever being "given" anything they didn't earn.
Ah, the brick-wall denial of the ideologue.
You were given your very life, which you didn't earn; along with a free country, which you didn't earn; any natural abilities you have, which you didn't earn; any favorable circumstances, which you didn't earn; etc. etc. Anything you contributed by your own efforts would have come to naught without things you didn't earn. If you don't see this you are a miserable, ungrateful wretch who will come to a very unpleasant end.
The wealthy, in their gratitude, have an obligation to use their wealth for the good of their neighbors and the betterment of society. This should be done voluntarily. If private charity met the needs of the poor, there would be no need for taxation for this purpose. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the state ensuring that misers like you contribute their share.
No. He was critiquing what he thought was a too slow and subtle conversion to communism that was stuck instead in socialism. He was advocating the superiority of communism with this slogan. Critique of the Gotha Programme
"And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need." - Acts 2:44-45
Every heresy involves the exploitation and exaggeration of a truth. This is the truth behind the Marxist heresy, the truth that sold socialism to Christian Europe. Just because Marx exploited certain truths to create a monster doesn't mean we should reject them in our rejection of Marxism. On the contrary, one of the most subtle dangers of Marxism is the overreaction it inspires.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
I'm in favor or rounding up all those in favor of redistributing the wealth, earnings or property that someone else has earned, compelling this redistribution by government force. Then, after rounding those people up, I'm in favor of redistributing those people to socialist, communist, marxist, or any other non-capitalist type ist country where they can all sing Kum Ba Ya, pound sand and redistribute each other until they are blue in the face.
Excessive? Lolz are these rich folks going broke from taxes?
They're slaves for at least 3 months of every year. If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you could volunteer to be a slave for 6 months. Deal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
