I'm understanding, now, even if I don't agree.
[Karma fronting, All cofronting]
I understand the concern, now, about what the Right Wing tends to refer to as the Left's focus on "redistribution of wealth."
If we tax the rich, for being rich, in order to help raise the standard of living of the poor, we are effectively blaming the rich for the problem, and rewarding the poor for what may very well be a situation they, themselves, caused.
People are rich, typically, because they have both the knowledge and the opportunity to milk Capitalism for every dime. If I took a hobo off of the street, gave him a book that fully explained how to do that, too, and a hundred grand to start with, he'd become a millionaire, too.
Generational poverty aside (because it's a different issue entirely) people are typically poor because they've made bad choices in life. I have a friend who is a great example of this. He's been effectively homeless for years, relying on the kindness of strangers, not because he's stupid or because his parents were poor, but because he just refuses to have an actual job. If he would just go apply some place that'll hire him and get even minimum wage, he'd feel less free, but he would also not be wondering if he'll have a place to stay next week. But, that's his choice. If the government suddenly starts handing him money, taken from the rich, for being rich, it would effectively be rewarding his poor choices as well as penalizing the rich for simply having the ways and means to be rich.
Now, personally, I think there's more to the situation than that. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think that we, as a society, shouldn't just leave it at "fuck the poor; they had their chance." Shouldn't those of us that *do* have the means to help be offering it? I don't send that friend of mine any money, because I am not truly doing so well, myself. If I were making twice what I am, now, I'd help, because I could afford it.
I suppose I can see why people don't like the idea of institutionalizing this "moral" grounds for assisting those in need, and here and now I have no ideal solution to the issue. Maybe some new legal definition of a charity, that says that any group not giving at least 70% (arbitrary number) of their income to those they are purporting to aid is not a charity, and cannot claim they are. Like the enforcement of who can label their food "Organic," and such. It'd be a government standard that allows people to know that what they're giving to actually is a charity.
I understand the concern, now, about what the Right Wing tends to refer to as the Left's focus on "redistribution of wealth."
If we tax the rich, for being rich, in order to help raise the standard of living of the poor, we are effectively blaming the rich for the problem, and rewarding the poor for what may very well be a situation they, themselves, caused.
People are rich, typically, because they have both the knowledge and the opportunity to milk Capitalism for every dime. If I took a hobo off of the street, gave him a book that fully explained how to do that, too, and a hundred grand to start with, he'd become a millionaire, too.
Generational poverty aside (because it's a different issue entirely) people are typically poor because they've made bad choices in life. I have a friend who is a great example of this. He's been effectively homeless for years, relying on the kindness of strangers, not because he's stupid or because his parents were poor, but because he just refuses to have an actual job. If he would just go apply some place that'll hire him and get even minimum wage, he'd feel less free, but he would also not be wondering if he'll have a place to stay next week. But, that's his choice. If the government suddenly starts handing him money, taken from the rich, for being rich, it would effectively be rewarding his poor choices as well as penalizing the rich for simply having the ways and means to be rich.
Now, personally, I think there's more to the situation than that. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think that we, as a society, shouldn't just leave it at "fuck the poor; they had their chance." Shouldn't those of us that *do* have the means to help be offering it? I don't send that friend of mine any money, because I am not truly doing so well, myself. If I were making twice what I am, now, I'd help, because I could afford it.
I suppose I can see why people don't like the idea of institutionalizing this "moral" grounds for assisting those in need, and here and now I have no ideal solution to the issue. Maybe some new legal definition of a charity, that says that any group not giving at least 70% (arbitrary number) of their income to those they are purporting to aid is not a charity, and cannot claim they are. Like the enforcement of who can label their food "Organic," and such. It'd be a government standard that allows people to know that what they're giving to actually is a charity.