No handouts, everyone should have to work! Right?


#1

So, I’m not really against all forms of inheritance, but I’m curious what is wrong about the cartoon below?


#2

What’s wrong with it is that I and I alone should be able to decide what happens to my fortune–assuming I have one. The government has already gotten IT’S share of it through taxes that I’ve paid all my life and I’ll give to “charity” when I decide to do so–not some moron bureaucrats anxious to get their hands on the rest of my money.


#3

So you don’t want to give it to the* government*? So if the money were transferred to the states to be used to help the needy, the poor, the handicapped, maybe even Vets, you’d be ok with that? Just as long as the (federal/) government didn’t get it?

Or you don’t think it should be taken at all?

Should your progeny should get your fortune, assuming you have one, just because it’s yours to give?

Should the children of the wealthy be able to choose to have no work ethic simply because the lottery of their birth?

All of that is fine, I suppose, but then it seems kind of hypocritical for the Kochs and the Donald Trumps of the world who certainly have extreme talent in their own right, but talent that was arguably funded, fostered or at the very least given an opportunity to do what they wanted without fear of ever landing in a gutter, homeless wondering where their next meal is coming from (though the examples I used certainly succeeded because of the wealth of their parents).

Now before I’m accused of class envy, I assure you, I grew up in the bottom quintile and today I’m safely in the top, thanks to a combination of hard work, lots of luck (I’m white, male and entered the IT industry in the early 1990’s), and help from friends and family and I was able to recover from whatever bad decisions I made when I was young…

Having said that, you’re against preventing the wage gap from the top, what if we instead we closed the gap by lifting up the bottom?


#4

[quote=“csbrown28, post:3, topic:48481”]
So you don’t want to give it to the* government*? So if the money were transferred to the states to be used to help the needy, the poor, the handicapped, maybe even Vets, you’d be ok with that? Just as long as the (federal/) government didn’t get it?
[/quote] I don’t want ANY government to “get it.” It’s MINE. To do with as I decide.

Or you don’t think it should be taken at all?
BINGO!

Should your progeny should get your fortune, assuming you have one, just because it’s yours to give?Should the children of the wealthy be able to choose to have no work ethic simply because the lottery of their birth?
As their parents, it’s MY responsibility to instill in them a “work ethic,” and if I’m a good parent, I’ll do that LONG before they reach adulthood.

All of that is fine, I suppose, but then it seems kind of hypocritical for the Kochs and the Donald Trumps of the world who certainly have extreme talent in their own right, but talent that was arguably funded, fostered or at the very least given an opportunity to do what they wanted without fear of ever landing in a gutter, homeless wondering where their next meal is coming from (though the examples I used certainly succeeded because of the wealth of their parents).

Now before I’m accused of class envy, I assure you, I grew up in the bottom quintile and today I’m safely in the top, thanks to a combination of hard work, lots of luck (I’m white, male and entered the IT industry in the early 1990’s), and help from friends and family and I was able to recover from whatever bad decisions I made when I was young…

Having said that, you’re against preventing the wage gap from the top, what if we instead we closed the gap by lifting up the bottom?
I’m all FOR raising the bottom, but we can only do that with people who are WILLING to lift themselves up instead of relying on handouts, either from some charity or from the government. We have 'way too many content with the goodies the government’s willing to hand out instead of working to better themselves–and then sit and bitch about how the “rich” live in comparison.


#5

You were responding to PD, but I’m partly going to respond to this, and partly offer my own take on the OP.

  1. It shouldn’t go to any level of government (except by the express will of the private individual who owns the wealth). You can talk about the kids not having earned it, but neither did the government.
  2. This.
  3. If it’s where I wish to bestow it, yes.
  4. As opposed to the lottery (or worse) of government? A TRILLION TIMES YES. Alternatively, one might will it to a specific charity or charities- of the owner’s choice (not the government’s).
  1. This isn’t a perfect world. Capitalism isn’t perfect. But it’s so vastly superior to any governmental system that it’s a wonder that it even needs to be discussed.
  2. I find it interesting that you find it necessary to mention “white male,” as if it were a significant factor in your economic status.
  3. There is no way to lift of the bottom other than opportunity (that doesn’t mean giving them someone else’s money). When you try to artificially lift the bottom, all you do is lower the top. Failure after failure of socialist or socialistic economies have proven this time and again.

#6

I believe in handouts. I can hand out what’s mine to whomever I choose. It’s mine. By definition, I have control over it and can make choices about it.

Your comic strip confuses the concept of involuntary “charity” with real charity or with gifts given voluntarily to one’s family, friends or whomever. It seems to equate them. They’re not the same thing. The only thing I agree with in that mess of a discussion is the second to last balloon.


#7

No, we do not exist or live for the sake of the State, we live & exist for the sake of the things most dear to each and one of us.

We live as sovereign, free people; not as perpetrators of the state. We are not its chattle or its servants, rather it serves us. Trying to give all of our possessions to the State confuses that relationship.

Should the children of the wealthy be able to choose to have no work ethic simply because the lottery of their birth?

Sure, but equally remember, “shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves.”

If they have no work ethic, they equally won’t know how to maintain it, and family fortunes tend to peter out by the 3rd generation.

By the grandkids time, people in the family tend to be back to where their grandparents started. The truth of the matter is, over 70% of the people whom have the largest fortunes, that vaunted 1%, earned it within their own lifetimes.

All of that is fine, I suppose, but then it seems kind of hypocritical for the Kochs and the Donald Trumps of the world who certainly have extreme talent in their own right, but talent that was arguably funded,

The human condition, that’s what this amounts to. Not simply funds, but functioning families, supply of mentors, and exposure to crime are all unequal.
And all were involved in making the Kochs what they are.

, what if we instead we closed the gap by lifting up the bottom?

You’re not going to “close the gap”, there is no rational way to equalize incomes, it’s utter nonsense.

You can set a minimum income, but that’s not closing the gap, it’s simply shrinking it a bit.


#8

Yep. The Biblical commands on helping the needy have nothing to do with the government. They have to do with personal charity. Otherwise, it’s not charity. The Bible also says that he who does not work should not eat. Someone brought that up as if it implied that it included the disabled. Nobody with as much as half a brain ever took it that way. We choose (or perhaps even God chooses) whom we should help. A quote in one of my nephew’s recent newsletters (missionaries in South Africa) says that “a need does not equal a call.” If it did, all of us would be burdened with more needs than we could handle. I have heard people suggest that if we know of a need and don’t meet it, it is a sin. I would argue that it was a sin only if God says, “You do it” and you refuse.