Many students believe that it is moral to confiscate money from hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs and give it to those who didn't earn it, yet don't s...
[youtube:186opyeo][/youtube:186opyeo]
You can word it as you did, asking if it's "moral to confiscate money from hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs and give it to those who didn't earn it". Or you can ask if it's OK to ask the wealthy to contribute more in taxes than the lower earners.
I think most Americans would agree with the way I worded it. The big debate, though, is just how much more should the wealthy pay.
The question is, will people continue to produce and hire as much when they start to pay more in taxes than they are "allowed" to keep?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
It all comes down to whether people believe others are inherently evil or good. Liberals believe people are evil and government must take money from them to help others and other people believe that people will help others without government forcing them to do it. I would prefer to help the causes I believe in, not what the money behind the lobbyists support.
I'm thinking in terms of income taxes. I'm assuming must of us believe the federal income tax is a necessary "evil"? Well, we could talk about a VAT, but that's a different subject. I just assume we agree the federal government needs to take in some income.
Even if you had a flat tax, the rich would pay more since they make more. If you think that's unfair, what's the alternative? Should everyone pay the exact same amount to support the federal government? Good luck with that.
Then why do liberals indicate others are selfish if they want to keep their earning instead of having the government take it? The only way the person can be selfish in this situation is if they did not help others with the money they retained. Ergo, liberals must believe others to be selfish/evil.