One subject that has come up in the recent "moral debate" is the supposed lack of morality in the policy of eliminating taxes on the rich while eliminating social services for the poor. This was mentioned particularly in the My View (Nov. 8) "Liberals do have a set of moral values" by Roger Baker.
Setting aside the economic efficiency problems, I cannot understand the moral soundness of forcing someone to be charitable. If I were rich, which I am not, it would be because I provided goods and services that people wanted.
I should no more be able to vote that a person should give up his wealth to help the poor anymore than I should be allowed to break into his house and steal his wealth to help the poor. In a system without socialized programs, an individual is free.
I feel that I should help the poor. I don't feel I should be able to force someone else to do so.
Gardner Gee
Midvale
- Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
- Letter: Lee's financial bungle reflects...
- Thomas Sowell: Raising taxes on rich won't...
- John Florez: Let's make education's Common...
- In our opinion: Editorial: DEA plan to scan...
- Obama and Romney should speak truth on...
- Hatch's debating 'issue' is manufactured
- Letter: Utah newspapers need to cover both...
- Letter: Obama shows allegiance to the...
56 - Letter: Lee's financial bungle reflects...
37 - Letter: Obama throws a curveball
31 - Thomas Sowell: Raising taxes on rich...
26 - Letter: Debates should be about finding...
22 - Letter: Age really matters regarding...
20 - Obama and Romney should speak truth on...
19 - Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
16






DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments