I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. — Hanover

Right. The way that Trump "merited" the money inherited from daddy. I'm sure you've heard the analysis that Trump, for all of his bluster about being a great "dealmaker," would have been better served financially to invest in an index fund than to have engaged in all of his wheelings and dealings.

I'm all for a meritocracy, but Trump's greatest asset is his own ego and self-promotion, not in making "deals." Only on those bases does he "merit" anything.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

I'm all for a meritocracy, but Trump's greatest asset is his own ego and self-promotion, not in making "deals." Only on those bases does he "merit" anything. — Arkady

He merits being brought down a peg or two, I'd say.

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it. — Hanover

I was going to say that "the question is a matter of how terms are defined", but then, no. It isn't a matter of how terms are defined. Fairness, merit, and equality are cover stories. The real story is about which economic class has enough power to impose its will on other classes, and secondarily, with which class does one identify? It has been said that "Most Americans expect to be rich someday, even if at the moment they find themselves in a rather embarrassing financial situation--flat broke."

Those who are better off also identify with the most exclusive class -- the 1 percenters. The are relatively much better off that most of the people in the country, and even if they are not rich relative to the top 1%, they are comfortable. Together this group represents around 5% - 10% of the population. The top 11% have the wherewithal to impose their will on the remaining 89%.

They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president. — Hanover

This is true, for the most part. Some fat cats are more loaded than others. I suspect that Trump or Bush have rather a lot more money than Sanders, but Sanders no doubt has a lot more money than I do. (If he doesn't, then there is probably something seriously wrong with him.) The Clintons have been working on their Original Accumulation for quite some time. They're not poor.

This from The Guardian about the discomfort of a meritorious tech unit, Justin Keller, an entrepreneur, developer and the founder of some measly startup.

The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe. I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.

The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it.

Say crude things about your mom. That really pisses me off. — Hanover

OK, here it goes...My mom is a Republican.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests — Michael

This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Justin Keller: "I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day" — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I read that. I hope someone hangs him upside-down by the balls so he comes to understand what pain, struggle and despair are. It can be done in private, of course, so no-one has to see.

Why is the Facebook picture of a train station?

Are we on the track to enlightenment? Ba-dum-ch!

The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it. — Bitter Crank

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that his position has been accepted by any meaningful group, so have at it in defeating it. You're not going to get any push back from me.

I will say, though, that sweeping the homeless from public spaces is a general tactic used in large cities, many of which are run by Democrats. We don't argue that it's being done because we're disgusted by them, but we instead make arguments related to crime and the annoyance of panhandling. It's also pretty clear that the homeless problem is more related to addiction and psychological issues than it is to a failed economic system.

It seems fairly irrelevant to me whether one group wants the homeless out because they stink and another because they hurt business and another because they think they're annoying. It also seems irrelevant to me whether some see the homeless as regular folks who have stumbled and others as failures. It's not what you think in your heart; it's what you do with your hands. So, if you care, go feed the homeless, assist in a shelter, donate money, do whatever. Telling folks how much you care and condemning those who you think don't care doesn't matter a whole lot to a homeless guy. I'd imagine you're both the same in his eyes.

It's not what you think in your heart; it's what you do with your hands. So, if you care, go feed the homeless, assist in a shelter, donate money, do whatever. — Hanover

Sure, put the burden on ordinary folks who care enough, when there are those with stupidly vast sums of money. How about we take it from them and give it to those who really need it? Just think about what could be done with all that money, rather than let it be horded and spent on top-of-the-range luxuries by and for an incredibly small percentage of the population.

@Sapientia The rich already are paying a disproportionate share towards helping the poor. As I've cited many times before, conservatives give more toward charity than liberals on average and the wealthy provide far more tax revenues than the poor. You may wish to argue they should pay more, but you can't argue that they are paying less than everyone else.

My comment was pretty simple, and it didn't even suggest the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. I simply said that you have little standing arguing about what other people do if you're just sitting in your chair complaining. Get out and help the homeless if they are your concern. Sign up at your local charity. There is a way to help out others other than by complaining that other people don't help out enough. All this wonderful talk about how we should serve others sounds somewhat hollow when it is followed by a rationalization for why we personally have no obligation to serve others.

If all the complainers would get out and help resolve the problem instead of demanding that others resolve the problems they find so important, then the problems would go a long towards being resolved. I get that you're tired of an unkempt house. Clean it.

The rich already are paying a disproportionate share towards helping the poor. As I've cited many times before, conservatives give more toward charity than liberals on average and the wealthy provide far more tax revenues than the poor. You may wish to argue they should pay more, but you can't argue that they are paying less than everyone else. — Hanover

You're attacking a straw man. My point was just that the burden is better placed on those with stupidly vast sums of money than on ordinary folks. I do think that the former ought to to pay more, and that if they do not, then they ought to be made to.

My comment was pretty simple, and it didn't even suggest the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. I simply said that you have little standing arguing about what other people do if you're just sitting in your chair complaining. Get out and help the homeless if they are your concern. Sign up at your local charity. There is a way to help out others other than by complaining that other people don't help out enough. All this wonderful talk about how we should serve others sounds somewhat hollow when it is followed by a rationalization for why we personally have no obligation to serve others.

If all the complainers would get out and help resolve the problem instead of demanding that others resolve the problems they find so important, then the problems would go a long towards being resolved. I get that you're tired of an unkempt house. Clean it. — Hanover

Yes, I understood your pretty simple comment. I don't think you actually needed to elaborate. I know that you didn't suggest, specifically, that the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. But your point is misguided nonetheless, because the burden then ends up, for the most part, in the hands of the vast majority: ordinary folks. But I am saying that the burden would be better placed on the small minority of super rich and powerful. Rather than buy an expensive yacht, donate that money to charity. Still left with billions of dollars in the bank and a large collection of extremely valuable assets? Then sacrificing the addition of a new yacht to your collection was not enough. Don't want to do more? Ok then, I guess that's your prerogative. On second thought, that's rubbish. If you won't do more, then that superfluous wealth should be forcibly taken from you and redistributed.

The greater the wealth, the greater the burden. The complacent aspect is unimportant, but taking action is important. Acknowledging the problem, and the best way in which it can be resolved is what matters.

Rather than buy an expensive yacht, donate that money to charity. Still left with billions of dollars in the bank and a large collection of extremely valuable assets? Then sacrificing the addition of a new yacht to your collection was not enough. Don't want to do more? Ok, then, I guess that's your prerogative. On second thought, that's rubbish. If you won't do more, then that superfluous wealth should be forcibly taken from you and redistributed. — Sapientia

Sure, and we can have a committee that oversees his bank account and governs all the money that he earns to determine what is and isn't a frivolous expenditure. I'm sure that wouldn't disincentivize anyone from making money and we'd see an explosion in productivity.

You continue to ignore that the rich already are paying disproportionately and it already is their contributions that are building public housing, education, welfare, health care, etc. You're just demanding that they pay more and for some reason you think folks shouldn't own yachts. Do you suppose someone might lose their job if they shut down the shipyards after you outlaw yachts?

And you also ignore my plea that you go out into your community and make it a better place as opposed to complaining about the rich bastards out there. Let's assume the world is unfair and that the rich are being relieved of their duty to make the world a better place all as the result of their ability to manipulate the law. It would seem if that were the case then your ethical duty to compensate for the rich's inadequacy would be increased. It's not like you can turn to the poor and tell them you can't help them because that is the job of the rich, and so sorry if they are failing.

I just find the moralizing a bit hypocritical. The rich need to do more, but I am justified in doing next to nothing? I daresay that if you actually committed your free time to resolving these problems, you wouldn't waste your time complaining and you might even see corporations and wealthy people as partners in your efforts. And if you were pulling your weight in regard to solving the problems, you would at least stand on the firm ground of your example when you demanded more from others. And by "others," I mean everyone, rich and poor.

I said that the burden would be better placed on the super rich and powerful (because I believe that they are better equipped to solve the problem). That doesn't mean that I believe that everyone else has no burden to do anything.

Let's assume the world is unfair and that the rich are being relieved of their duty to make the world a better place all as the result of their ability to manipulate the law. It would seem if that were the case then your ethical duty to compensate for the rich's inadequacy would be increased. — Hanover

No, my primarily ethical duty would be to put right the wrong, rather than maintain it, and compensating for the inadequacy of the rich would maintain that wrong. So I would instead advocate revolutionary action.

I view any corporations and wealthy people as partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty who I believe are genuinely attempting to resolve the problem. But that, in itself, is not sufficient. They might have the wrong idea about the best way in which to resolve the problem.

No, my primarily ethical duty would be to put right the wrong, rather than maintain it, and compensating for the inadequacy of the rich would maintain that wrong. So I would instead advocate revolutionary action. — Sapientia

Well that sure is the laziest solution. You can't help the poor because if you do then your government representatives won't force the rich to help the poor, but the rich won't be forced because they control the whole enterprise, so the poor will remain poor, even though you could have done something to help them. I'm sure the poor appreciate your integrity in not helping them and they admire your philosophizing from your armchair.

Should I encourage others not to help the poor so that I can create such a horrible situation that my government might finally act? Suppose my representatives don't act, but they instead interpret everyone's refusal to help the poor as evidence that their constituency doesn't care about the poor? That might be a logical conclusion, as opposed to their thinking that the reason their constituency doesn't help the poor is actually because they care so much they refuse to help in the hopes the poor end up getting help. While it's physically lazy, the mental gymnastics are strenuous.

I view any corporations and wealthy people as partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty who I believe are genuinely attempting to resolve the problem. But that, in itself, is not sufficient. They might have the wrong idea about the best way in which to resolve the problem. — Sapientia

And yet another reason not to help out. Nothing like throwing down the moral gauntlet and refusing to do anything that is beneath you, all the while when there's someone suffering.

So here's how it works: Wells Fargo Bank decides to team up with the American Cancer Society to raise funds to help treat cancer. As you might know, Wells Fargo really isn't in the cancer treating business, but they're in the banking business. What they really want is to profit from selling banking products, and they're using the ACS as a vehicle to make more money. Shocking, I know.

So, you have 2 choices, work with Wells Fargo and see to it that more people are treated for cancer or sit back in your chair and bitch about it. I suppose you'll take option 2, considering that requires no effort on your part.

Edit: From their website: "The American Cancer Society gratefully acknowledges those many corporations who actively support its mission to save more lives from cancer and create a world with more birthdays. In 2014 corporate contributions accounted for approximately $85,173,147.00."

You can't help the poor because if you do then your government representatives won't force the rich to help the poor, but the rich won't be forced because they control the whole enterprise, so the poor will remain poor, even though you could have done something to help them. — Hanover

Sorry, I didn't realise quite how unrealistic your hypothetical scenario was: so unrealistic that the wealth of those who are wealthy and uncooperative could not be forcibly taken - even if the rest of the world were to revolt against them.

Remind me, what was your hypothetical scenario supposed to show?

And yet another reason not to help out. Nothing like throwing down the moral gauntlet and refusing to do anything that is beneath you, all the while when there's someone suffering. — Hanover

You're reading all of that into my comment.

I take your point about companies which inadvertently help a good cause in their effort to increase profit, but they are hardly partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty - at least not in the way that I would interpret that phrase - since, if they could lose the middle man without losing profit, or if they'd make an even greater profit, then why wouldn't they simply cut the Charity out of the equation and cease all contributions? Is that what a partner in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty would do, or is that just what a self-interested profiteer would do?

So, you have 2 choices, work with Wells Fargo and see to it that more people are treated for cancer or sit back in your chair and bitch about it. I suppose you'll take option 2, considering that requires no effort on your part. — Hanover

False dilemma. I'll go with option 3: aim to change things for the better, so that the power isn't in the hands of Wells Fargo and others like them.

Is that what a partner in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty would do, or is that just what a self-interested profiteer would do? — Sapientia

Who cares as long as poverty is reduced? Would a homeless person really care if his bagged meal was in generic paper or in one with a Nike swoosh?

False dilemma. I'll go with option 3: aim to change things for the better, so that the power isn't in the hands of Wells Fargo and others like them. — Sapientia

By "aim" I suppose you mean "want," because as I've pointed out, you've done nothing. How does wanting change trump going out and helping others?

Who cares as long as poverty is reduced? Would a homeless person really care if his bagged meal was in generic paper or in one with a Nike swoosh? — Hanover

I reckon that those who are genuinely interested in reducing poverty, and not just taking advantage of the situation as a means to a greedy end, would probably care. There is a wider issue at stake here. If you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, then you have questionable morals; and again, the more wealthy and powerful you are, the more questionable your morals become. Is it good for society for those with questionable morals to have the most wealth and power?

By "aim" I suppose you mean "want," because as I've pointed out, you've done nothing. How does wanting change trump going out and helping others? — Hanover

No, by "aim" I mean aim, and not simply want. I would have said "want" if that was what I meant. An aim, like a desire, doesn't necessitate action, but it doesn't have the same meaning as the latter, so you can't reduce the former to the latter.

How, may I ask, do you know that I've done nothing? Or is that just an assumption? Do you know what they say about those who assume?

Even if I have done nothing, I would just accept your charge of hypocrisy. It's an irrelevant ad hominem.

If you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, then you have questionable morals — Sapientia

Why? I think that characterizes most people at a basic level. We first care about ourselves, then about others. I'd say the immoral person is the one who does not care about others at any level.

An aim, like a desire, doesn't necessitate action, but it doesn't have the same meaning as the latter, so you can't reduce the former to the latter. — Sapientia

Alright, you meant aim, not want, but I think we're using it the same way here, which is just to want things to change, but not necessarily to do anything about it.

How, may I ask, do you know that I've done nothing? Or is that just an assumption? Do you know what they say about those who assume?

Even if I have done nothing, I would just accept your charge of hypocrisy. It's an irrelevant ad hominem. — Sapientia

You may be a philanthropist as far as I know. My point is very different from yours despite that I may have engaged in an irrelevant attack on your integrity. My point is that there is nothing moral about wanting things to be good if you do nothing good and there is something moral about wanting things to be bad as long as you make things good. This dispensing of the requirement that you actually try to make things better is what I'm objecting to.

I'd also point out that your argument was in fact that you objected to certain good deeds because you felt it would result in the rich being absolved of their duty to help the poor. That is, you were actually arguing that it was bad to do what appeared to be good, so if you do in fact do good deeds for the poor, you're not just a hypocrite, you're a bad person under your definition of what it is to be good.

I'm waiting for the pope to weigh in on the Scalia succession.

Why? I think that characterizes most people at a basic level. We first care about ourselves, then about others. I'd say the immoral person is the one who does not care about others at any level. — Hanover

Yes, I agree. It's more complex than what I said, but I stand by the principle behind what I'm trying to say. It's about getting the right balance. It would be better put as follows: if you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, without a good enough reason, then you have questionable morals.

Alright, you meant aim, not want, but I think we're using it the same way here, which is just to want things to change, but not necessarily to do anything about it. — Hanover

The last part is correct, but an aim can be an intention or goal - presumably one that is desired, and which one plans to pursue. So, no, it is not acceptable to replace "aim" with "want", because that changes the meaning, and doesn't fully convey what I mean to convey.

My point is that there is nothing moral about wanting things to be good if you do nothing good and there is something moral about wanting things to be bad as long as you make things good. — Hanover

I get where you're coming from, although I don't quite agree. But I don't think that that really matters, because what you're objecting to (as per the following quote) is a straw man.

This dispensing of the requirement that you actually try to make things better is what I'm objecting to. — Hanover

I have not advocated the stance that one is justified in dismissing the responsibility to try to make things better. Quite the contrary. (I think that we have disagreed over what making things better would consist in in certain situations, and which course of action is paramount).

For your information, I don't think that I have done enough to support the cause-in-question, which I do believe in, in order to justify my lack of action in that regard. But, as I pointed out, that is not relevant to my argument.

I'd also point out that your argument was in fact that you objected to certain good deeds because you felt it would result in the rich being absolved of their duty to help the poor. That is, you were actually arguing that it was bad to do what appeared to be good, so if you do in fact do good deeds for the poor, you're not just a hypocrite, you're a bad person under your definition of what it is to be good. — Hanover

No, no, no. I don't agree with your analysis of my argument. There is good in doing good deeds, but there is something bad about doing good deeds for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, doing a good deed results in (some) good, but can also result in bad consequences in terms of the bigger picture, or later down the line.

It's good if more people are treated for cancer, and if poverty is reduced, but my point was more complex than that, and the context must be taken into consideration. If the moral cost outweighs the moral benefit of a "good deed", then that should be taken into consideration.

I'm in favour of more people being treated for cancer - even as the result of dubious intentions, although that would not be ideal - but not at any cost.

Many Christians like to focus on intention, or contemplated but not completed actions. For instance, if you are thinking about screwing your neighbors wife, you are an adulterer. If you covet your neighbor's new weed whacker, you are a thief. If you hate Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, your are a murderer. By this set of moral standards, we are all not only sinful, but rather depraved sinners.

I favor another set of moral standards: You either did it or you didn't. The standard for the final judgement (Matthew 25:31-46 is "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." You either did or you didn't. Thinking about it doesn't count.

We should not worry about other people's motivations (within the context of morality). What are they actually doing? Are they being generous for tax purposes? What do you care--the food shelf is able to buy all the food they need. Were they being generous to the hospital because the new wing would bear their name? What do you care -- the expanded mental health unit is now open and helping people. Did they give you money to go to college just so you would get the hell out of town and leave their daughter alone? What do you care? You now have a BA in English Literature--ring a ding ding. Did the rich woman give a hand full of jewelry she would no longer care to be seen dead wearing? What do you care? The homeless shelter now has a new furnace, new roof, and beds for everybody to sleep in.

By the same standard (Jesus' preaching) rich people have a major problem: their wealth.

The rich young man knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”

20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

By this standard, the rich can not get into heaven unless they part with their wealth. ("A rich man can no sooner get into heaven than a camel can get through the eye of a needle.") Jesus takes this position because salvation and wealth are incompatible: "Where your treasure is, there also is your heart." Of course, one doesn't have to be in the top 1% to have moral problems with wealth. One can be a small-practice lawyer, for instance, or a used car dealer or a burger flipper and fall into the sin of avarice (the love of money).

Nobody is under any obligation to concern themselves with Jesus' views unless they are baptized Christians, of course -- and many baptized Christians don't spend too much time concerning themselves with Jesus' views either. Nonetheless, What Jesus taught is the principle foundation for viewing wealth getting and wealth having as a moral problem.

Much of what you said I agree with. The ethical imperative of charity is not unique to Christianity and it largely explains why the religious (who are more often on the right of the political spectrum) are more charitable than their counterparts.

I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it.

I also am aware that Protestantism rejects the notion that good acts are necessary for salvation, which was a response to the Catholic Church's prior rules requiring payment of money to the church in order to be saved. There was a certain enlightenment associated with this reformation, as it eliminated the Church's control over who might get into heaven and thus put such matters solely in the power of the faithful. I find that change enlightened because it did exactly what it was intended, it kept folks from demanding things or acts in order to be right before God, and to some extent it puts an end to your suggestion that proper Christians must favor a particular political view. That is, it is not required that the rich help the poor for them to be good people as long as they keep the faith.

Where I might add to the Protestant view is that I can accept that salvation might be achieved through faith alone, but I am going to be highly suspect of anyone's declaration of faith if there is no corresponding good behavior that accompanies it. If you care so deeply for the poor, it would be an odd way of showing it if you never did anything caring for them.

Much of what you said I agree with — Hanover

That is a problem I can fix.

I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it. — Hanover

I wasn't trying to weasel government-managed redistribution of wealth out of Christian theology. The very early church shared everything in common -- supposedly -- a communism of consumption. They could afford to do this because they thought the Kingdom of God was about to arrive, so their earthly goods were of no concern. My guess is that this happy party came to a screeching halt as soon as they figured out that the world wasn't becoming heaven.

No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. As far as I know, the idea doesn't come directly from Marx either. Marx's writings don't seem to back up reforms like a government managed redistribution of some wealth from the capitalist to the working class. Marx was interested in the complete reorganization of society. Marx didn't wish capitalists to be more generous, he wished for their disappearance (as a class and as a function).

Social amelioration through wealth redistribution is an idea that comes from reform minded marxists--a group that hard core marxists are forever deploring and castigating. This kind of social democratic reform is much more common in European countries, and has not been firmly established in the United States. That is why single payer health insurance is such a horror here, and Obamacare is nigh unto the end of the Republic, in some quarters. Roosevelt's new deal reforms, enacted partly to forestall potential uprisings and partly as humanitarian programs, were challenged in the courts, and are still under attack (like transferring Social Security to the stock market). Medicare and Medicaid were also fiercely resisted after their enactment.

Wealth, concentrated or as evenly distributed as frosting on a cake, is a social product. The rich can not generate wealth alone. It is the activity of the 99% that creates the wealth of the 1%. The social production of wealth is what justifies the social redistribution of wealth through high rates of taxation.

Distribution of wealth is a reform, not a revolution. It's practical: the only way enough resources can be obtained to make significant improvements in society is by taxation, and it is appropriate that very wealthy people should pay taxes at a much higher rate than poor people. It is appropriate that the government should take a substantial share of deceased rich people's wealth (like the richest 1%) to compensate the producing class for the wealth they created but did not proportionately benefit from.

High rates of taxation do not cause rich people suffering (they remain rich after they pay their higher rate of taxation) and it benefits the entire society -- everyone from the lumpen proletariat to the haute bourgeoisie. How does high taxation benefit the haute bourgeoisie? Simple: Idle money redistributed from the enormous stores of the rich and given to working people stimulates economic activity--immediately, which ultimately (and fairly quickly) benefits the rich. Economic stagnation is hell for poor people and means a poor growth rate for the rich.

The rich do not have an absolute right to the socially created wealth which they would like to have under their exclusive control, free of any tax obligation.

No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. — Bitter Crank

This is a complicated question that might be the subject of a dissertation.

The earliest forms of government redistribution were referred to as a palace economy, which dates back to the Bronze Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy . The absolute ruler would receive wealth from the people and would then redistribute it out based upon special privilege or in order to invest for more wealth for the ruler. The notion of "each according to need" came a long time later obviously, but I'd assume was an outgrowth of modern democracy, where the needs of the people generally predominated over a particular ruler's needs. Generally rulers do seize money, but they keep it for themselves, although I'm sure Kings and Queens have from time to time distributed their wealth for some benevolent purpose, however sporadic it might have been.

In looking to ancient Jewish culture, charity was required by God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah), but not by any person with secular power to enforce the rule. You gave charity to avoid the harsh judgment imposed by God. Deut 11:22-32. It was also considered a social norm. https://books.google.com/books?id=s3VnyvPlVb4C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=how+was+charity+required+in+ancient+israel&source=bl&ots=0c8mYP1wUO&sig=1DSi-v5lPblxjb_bayO40acF1f0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT7seUtYTLAhXDMyYKHR_LCIgQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=how%20was%20charity%20required%20in%20ancient%20israel&f=false.

There was also the requirement to tithe, which is today understood as a requirement to give 10% of your income to charity. This is a bit of a corruption of the actual rule, which was actually that farmers were required to give 10% of their annual crops and livestock to the Levites (the priests) because the Levites had no land and no way to produce their own food. The rule really wasn't meant to feed the poor, but was required to sustain the structure of the society. With the destruction of the second temple, that rule was abolished, as were all laws related to sacrifice and priestly rites.

My point here is only to say that there have been many instances in history where money was provided to some central entity and that entity then gave that money back to the rank and file. How it was seized (whether by force, fear of God, or by social expectations) varied, and how it was redistributed varied (by special privilege, through investment concerns, or to assist the most needy) also varied.

My position therefore isn't that charity or taxation or redistribution is a bad thing per se, but it is to say that there are all sorts of forms, with me favoring a more voluntary system imposed by social norms and a distribution to those truly in need. It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? That is, there should be a social expectation that everyone fix this problem, not just a demand that those who have enough extra stuff to just give it up. Such a demand is especially difficult to accept from those who refuse to accept the social norm that they get out and help those in need. As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough.

It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? — Hanover

"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that anything I might say in response is likely to be seized upon and deliberately misconstrued by devious agents who are known to be operating in these parts..."

As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough. — Hanover

Right! "Hanover: Here's your volunteer activities for the week -- only 1 hour each day! What a deal!"

Monday -- patch potholes on Broadway. Bring a shovel. Be there 15 minutes early.
Tuesday -- feeding hospice patients - bring a clean spoon this time. There were complaints.
Wednesday -- bailing out a backed up sewer -- bring a bucket and some hand sanitizer (about a gallon)
Thursday -- police duty at a riot -- bring an assault rifle.
Friday -- cooking at a shelter -- bring a pot.
Saturday -- more patching potholes -- no rest for the wicked. Bring some asphalt.
Sunday -- janitorial duty at the food poisoning clinic - bring a mop.

If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. But it isn't. Governments and NGOs at all levels provide an array of essential services which make life reasonably pleasant and secure and which cost more than workers could conceivably pay for collectively--since they don't keep much of the value they create in their work. We have to reach into the assets of those who accumulate wealth without working--that 1% again. Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit

If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. — Bitter Crank

Well, I've not argued for the Randian wet dream of complete government elimination of all services with the expectation of private enterprise replacement of those services. The spectrum runs from radical rightest Libertarianism to absolute communism with no retention of private capital, with me obviously fading toward the right and you being more left than I am right (as you are a self-avowed Marxist).

The point being that I favor some taxation (which is already progressive in nature) and government services, and I believe that what we currently have adequately provides the basic services. The concern that I'm hearing in this thread is that those dreaded 1 percenters have too much money and should do more to help their fellow citizens (1) out of a sense of general fairness, and (2) because there are many who need more help than the government is currently willing or able to provide. My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money, and (2) private supplementation can better address many of the problems related to poverty.

I then went on to say that since private donations of money and time do make a real difference to the problems facing us, it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just griping about how the rich should be forced to come down from their penthouses to save us.

it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just gripin — Hanover

Absolutely, voluntary contributions above and beyond non-voluntary contributions help. Bleeding hearts of all makes and models should definitely contribute and get beyond bitching and carping. I give, but I haven't gotten beyond bitching and carping, but my b. and c. is much calmer now than it used to be.

My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money — Hanover

Shifting ground here a bit, from social and economic justice to long range estimates of economic activity...

Robert J. Gordon argues in his book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War (Princeton University Press, 2016) that the disproportionate wealth controlled by the 1% "is a headwind which will lessen the benefits of innovations..." This is so, he thinks, because this pool of wealth is not circulating, not investing in new products and services in the manufacturing sector, not buying new products and services in the domestic sector. The wealth is not entirely idle, but it is not working productively, either.

If you like economic and social history, Gordon's book has some good stuff in it. Aside from various headwinds, he is the opinion that the major, non-reproducible, great inventions have been made, and new, great inventions are unlikely to be made in the next 25 years, at least. Why?

Because the great inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries transformed life in such fundamental ways. Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. Once houses are connected to the network of gas, electricity, telecoms, water, and sewer, the transformation of shelter is largely over. Putting satellite dishes and solar panels on the roof is a refinement, not a revolution. Once you have developed effective sanitation, antibiotics, cancer treatments, and other effective medical procedures, the rest is, again, refinement.

Boosting economic activity for the billions of people in the world, or the millions in the developed world, requires not innovation but a greater volume of money moving through the economy, and that means loosening up a substantial portion of the wealth locked up by the 1%. (BTW, "loosening up" doesn't require "us" taking it away from "them"; it could mean inducing them to invest in manufacturing and consumption rather than financial instruments.)

I would rate the likelihood of loosening up a few hundred billion or a trillion dollars as unlikely.

Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. — Bitter Crank

There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. I'd say it was as much a refinement when the first guy was able to tame a horse enough to ride it as it was a refinement to move to a horse driven buggy and then another refinement to the horseless carriage. You could also call each of those revolutions.

I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate and now we have rotary phones hanging from our walls that enable us to contact our friends from across the country (but be sure to call at night when the rates are lower).