Posted on 04/09/2017 10:27:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An idiot speaks
If you live in America, you are rich by the worlds standards. One does not make the rest of the world rich by making America poor any more than one fixes everyone elses broken cars by destroying your working one.
One copies success, and America became wealthy by being a Godly Christian Nation. But it seems the Demonrats are determined to destroy our car, and our Nation.
Funny thing is that they don’t spend any time trying to teach others, just destroy us.
The greatest wealth gap is not between the guy who has a hundred dollars and the guy who has a billion, but between the guy who has a biscuit and the guy who has none.
its only immoral for leftist to be rich because they steal to achieve wealth
The Writer obviously never listened to Ten Years After.
Someone needs to ask Hidabeast if she is immoral- since she and Bilabeast are most definitely Rich
The point of that story is not that wealth is immoral.
What a maroon!
“A reminder that people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty”
Non Sequitur.
It does not follow. There is no such cause and effect - the premise is absolutely divorced from objectivity.
If I work a second job and become richer, it does not CAUSE someone else to be poorer - actually there will likely be added benefits to others, as I spend or invest more.
white families in America have 16 times as much wealth on average as black families...
Really!!??
My wife’s been holding out on me. :)
Have to search her email tomorrow!
Is this entire article satire? ‘Cuz what’s mine is mine. Don’t like it? You are more than welcome to come and try to take it.
A fool thinks it is better to make money doing nothing and they find out their reward when they follow through on their thinking with theft.
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
til there are no rich no more
(total non-sequitor alert)I'd love to turn you on...
(it ought to be)and then the poor will starve anyway...
Don't give em a fish. Teach them to fish. If they refuse to learn...oh well, let em starve.
A lie the rich tell the poor.
You are an effin lunatic.
You are putting a cap on earnings as some stupid moral imperative.
You can the life of luxury on $100,000? Uhmmmm....no you can’t and eventually you will to raise the $100,000 cap as the cost for goods, services and property continues to rise.
Further, you will remove the incentive for acquisition and reduce man to somewhere between socialism and law of the jungle, since money has a finite supply and everyone is judged to have their fair share as determined by someone else.
Reducing incentive to acquire means there is little reason to create a product or service that competes with others.
Here you want to think of AT&T before 1984. One company, monopoly rates and essentially zero innovation as there’s no competitors there is no reason to innovate.
Besides, you bitch about the too 20% and how much they keep of the fruit of their reward.
Like a Gardner who plants seeds in the spring and harvests in the fall.
Who then prepare that harvest selling a portion of it, bartering a portion and even storing so much extra he couldn’t possibly eat the quantity in a year but, he dies so as a means of conserving something of value he could sell at a higher price if the market will pay or barter for a tire and still have saved extra in the event of a catastrophe.
If there is no incentive to get wealthy then feel free to resurrect the the original concept of socialism, the Mayflower Compact.
“From each according to his work, to each according to his need “
BTW, 74% of America doesn’t pay federal income tax.
So either you are arguing everyone should fed tax or you don’t know what you are talking about and have no concept of wealth distribution except you would like to redistribute it “more fairly”
If we grant arguendo that this proposition is true, it still leads nowhere, because the question of acquisition on the part of the person who did not earn the money is far more problematic. By what moral imperative are those who lack things entitled to take from those don't lack?
The answer, in both the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Objectivist worldview (which are worlds apart) is, oddly, the same: the man lacking means has no moral claim on the man having them, in fact in the more "charitable" worldview he is explicitly COMMANDED that he may not covet what another possesses.
“...to what degree are you allowed to keep it...?” [your property aka money]
At least this statist is consistent in his thought. If your property is not your property, the only question is how much can you get to keep and who gets to decide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.