Now that MLB is back...does anyone care?
 

Seattle doesn't really have a team, my Astros are disgraced, and all the other teams are either boring or our enemies. The '94 strike hurt the sport for years and many of us didn't watch it with any interest until the Sosa/McGwire steroid HR battle. It certainly hasn't been as interesting since, and I'd argue it's been on a slow downhill slide.

So how will the infantile behavior of the spoiled egotistical owners and over-paid players who have no appreciation of where their grossly-gigantic incomes comes from, affect us, the fans?

I really enjoyed watching a 2004 NLCS championship game yesterday, and as long as I can get hold of these old films, I think I'm good.

I'm a fan - period - I'll take baseball over any other sport - I grew up in football country and stuck with that norm until I grew up and learned to think and follow my own path in life. At times baseball is my distraction from the social whatever is going on in the news on any given day, having a game on TV is the best escape from what the other Chanel's have to offer. I love the fact that it's history in so entwined with this country's history that you can explore and read about the events of of country and find its effects on the game. The GAME has changed in many aspect to reflect the cultural change of our nation, but on the other hand has not. Baseball policy has been great and saddling, has shown fault and achievement it's changed labor laws and cultural norm. It's the best of the USA and at times the worst of greed and sandals - I enjoy baseball on professional and little league level, it,s a piece of my life that I welcome with open arms. Any baseball is good even so much as a 50 something year old guy still collects baseball cards for the love of the game. If baseball is on a down hill slide than I'm all in and will stay on the bandwagon until the end. It's my game and proud to say so!!!

I can't argue with any of that. Just wondering about MLB coming back now, not the history, which obviously no one in a vintage baseball card forum would argue isn't important and great. I'm certainly not one of those guys who thinks we should destroy history, even though I know it's currently in vogue. But I would argue that MLB has done everything imaginable to separate it's current incarnation from its history, and has pushed further and further toward something that's unrecognizable from the last time we played a ~60 game season. If all of that doesn't alienate a huge fan like yourself, then I'm betting the slide will continue.

I'm with you regarding Little League and other non-MLB forms of our sport - still all in and if I give up on MLB I'll probably replace it with watching college baseball. Just not sure I'm in for MLB in 2020. I was out for 1995, and life went on just fine. We'll see - I love the sport so much that I won't know until it's 'opening day' and I have the option of watching a game.

In some sense I'll care even more this year. If Paxton gets hurt making 3 starts in a 60 game season and misses his final year in 2021, I couldn't help but feel like the decision to play this year was a stupid one.

With his luck this will be his career season, but not enough stats to make it shine in the future. He's one of my favorites so I wish him well.

I'll have to revise my view. Paxton is a free agent after 2020, not 2021. Pitch him every day.

If there ended up not being a season, I wouldn't have cared. Now that there is, I'll watch my Mets.

No. The short season is a joke. To qualify for the batting title, I believe a batter needs 3.1 PA per scheduled game. A 50 game season therefore requires just 155 PA. So what will happen is, somebody is going to draw 30 walks, get 50 hits, and be the first .400 hitter since Teddy Ballgame. That would be the ultimate mockery of the sanctity of that record.

Reds fan here. Cincinnati positioned themselves for this to be THE YEAR. I am hoping and praying 60 games will get played, and that there will be playoffs. But this infectious rage that is going on might dampen that. And then....not sure what 2021 will bring the Reds.

While agree on the “season” stats and that no record broken should be acknowledged, i am excited to have something to follow.

I'm ambivalent. I enjoy baseball but I haven't followed MLB very closely in quite a few years. Plus, the season hadn't started. I might feel differently if we had seen an Opening Day and some good storylines and then had it shut down.

There are two aspects of baseball I do miss...first, we always make a couple of trips to minor league parks around Texas. That started when my kids were young and we would drive down to the Rio Grande Valley and take in independent Texas-Louisiana League games. We've kept up the tradition with trips to the AA and AAA franchises around the state. The teams have worked hard to make game nights fun. Not gonna happen at all this year. The minors are in trouble I think.

I also normally go to college games at the University of Houston (my school) and San Jac JC which is just a few minutes away from me. I was able to see some games before it all shut down but I was looking forward to more.

Just like how World War 2 impacted some career stats of great players

so will Covid....50 games this year..and next year can also be impacted...also catching the virus will take a player out of 14 games or so plus he has to worry about the normal injuries

5 years from now we may have some players that are within 5 or so homers of a key number or from a player above them that 'what if' played 100 more games..would of hit those key HOF number or a number above the next guy who is in the HOF..

I'm an Orioles fan an 100% don't care. Won't watch a game and the World Series Champs this year might claim it's a real title but all will know it's nothing more than an asterisk.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a huge mistake. The CBA is up next year and if a player gets sick and (god forbid) passes away or someone in their immediate family passes away because the commissioner compelled a season, I think baseball will have a hard time coming back long-term.

No one gives a shit. There’s money to be made. America.

People definitely do care and if a player passes away you can be sure the union will care.

If its one player that passes away , in the context of life, i dont think thats a big deal. Its very possible in their age group many would get the virus and one would die, maybe even more.

One can argue that without the lack of structure and all of the corona testing and safeguards in baseball, that the players on the whole would be at more risk at home

We all know how 18-25 year olds are acting now. Going to parties and events that they would not be doing so easily if under the eye of the league

Just saying its not all in a vacuum.

That is a pretty generalized view of an entire population of people from all over the world (baseball is an international sport) and one that won't apply to any player or coach or manager or team employee not 18 to 25. Also you're missing the larger point that the season was compelled by the commissioner and not at the players behest.

Not really sure what you're saying re: a player passing away from the corona virus during the season isn't a big deal. Who isn't it a big deal to?

All I know is that MLB looks like chumps compared to NBA, with all their arguments over money. Did you see NBA is paying Disney $150 million to use their facilities without fans, and expect to lose $1 billion or more financially. WOW

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Funny story, since COVID-19 is so funny: A University campus takes up half of our census tract. Rich kids from out-of-state, paying a fortune to go to a private university. So they've been partying since early March when this all began - never stopped. There are four party houses within a block of us, and all the kids just go to whichever one is currently hosting a party.

So a few days ago they stopped partying - no more beer pong in the front yard, no more groups of kids sun-bathing, no more groups of drunks wandering past our house from one party to another.

So I notice our 'infected' numbers, which had been at 0-5 for three months, go to 5-9. The next day they are 10-14. Two days later they are 15-19. Still no kids anywhere to be seen. Yesterday I'm out walking the dog and as we walk past the biggest of the party houses, I see a kid sitting on the porch. I ask him if someone got sick. He says: "Yeah, I think so."

Me: "I guessed as much, since the parties stopped."
Him: "Yeah, that was a smart move."

So think about it: You've got 50-100 college kids all going to the same parties, one gets sick, and it must be bad because asymptomatic rich college kids don't get tested. You're a college kid and you find out about it. Are you going to the next party?

Bodies in the street. Only way this ever ends. I'm so proud of our future leaders.

Not much anymore. NL DH, runners starting on 2B in extra innings, millionaires whining they don't make enough millions to play baseball, or that they have to play too many games to rake in their $10,000,000 a year. It's getting less fun with every year.

I had the owners in mind when i made this comment.....and the owners own the commissioner. That said, I’ll double down and say that a rich guy seizing an opportunity to get richer by putting others’ health and well-being at risk is an American tale as old as time.

spare me the one life argument.

we could all stay locked down and save 100,000 lives...but we arent for lots of reasons as you know

people are working right now at jobs that are at much more risk to their health than the ball players.

the ballplayers dont have to play if they dont want to. ian desmond has opted out and so will many others......so again if one ball player does i dont see it as a big deal to MLB......they dont have to play if they dont want to and they dont need the money compared to the public at large...

look how many players are already testing positive for the virus and they havent even started the season...if its the same percentage getting the virus when the season started and someone dies.....someone could of easily died without playing as they are still catching the virus anyway...plus what if the percentage catching the virus is less compared to what the percentage is now..

you going to blame mlb for the death when the testing percentage of positive is lower than what it is before they arrived to camp?

if negligence and we have a whole team flare up..thats a different story...

With daily testing, these millionaires in the prime of life and in excellent physical condition without, by and large, relevant pre-existing conditions, and the best medical care in the world, who have the option of opting out, can go hit a baseball.

Much more looking forward to the NBA this year. When I was a kid baseball ruled over the NBA and NFL, now as I gotten older I rather watch the NBA and NFL over the MLB, even with that I am glad the MLB is back. I am definitely not a fan of that runner on second base in extra innings game though. That`s going a little too far.

For us, the '94 strike was crushing but mainly because of what it may have cost our Expos. The record-book shredding
steroid-fueled home run derbies of the later '90s were, to us, nauseating and far more off-putting.
We slowly came back to the game and, desperate by this point to see any major league sports, were happy to
hear that even a drastically shortened season would take place. Then we learn it's universal DH, runners on 2nd
to start extra innings, pitch clocks, mandatory batters faced, and whatever other youth-league perversions of
the game they can jam in there. Hey, will the mercy rule be in effect? As far as we're concerned, whatever it is
they're starting, it ain't baseball. Find a gym for everybody and have 'em play Indoor Baseball, that'd be
just as "interesting." Or, with no spectators anyway, any softball field and fifty games of slo-pitch. At least
there'd be a novelty factor.
And dadgummit, you kids stay off our lawn, by cracky...

they have it easy compared to nurses who make a pittance and risk their lives everyday and really dont have a choice to opt out

Theres a reason most baseball video games have a 'arcade mode' so this season is arcade mode..is what it is ..lots of things in 2020 are not going to be normal.....lets hope its just 2020..

Will anyone watch if Trout opts out? Would he opt out for half the season? He has a baby due in August.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I havent seen trout play in years and i watch at least 100 games year ..hes on the west coast and in the AL...

I can’t believe there are so many people who fall into the owner’s narrative trap about the players being “millionaires who play a game”.

The owners are BILLIONAIRES who don’t want to pay people to work. How can anyone be on the side of people who by and large inherited their fortunes and never worked a day in their life.

How do they not want to pay people to work? What player is working and not getting paid? They don't want to pay players not to play, actually....

It's not that I'm on the Billionaires side, it's that in the constant public money fighting between millionaires and billionaires, they all seem whiny and unappealing.

The A’s are valued at over 2 billion dollars and as soon as the minor league season was cancelled they stopped paying the players $400 a week so they could save 1.3 million dollars. The owners only reversed course after the league made enough noise about it. Why should the players not want to get paid when all the owners want to do is screw them and make it look like the players are the bad guys?

The owners originally wanted to pay the players one third of their salary regardless of how many games they played.

This is decidedly NOT "...who don’t want to pay people to work". They didn't pay some minor leaguers who didn't work. I stand by the facts in my statement, and my opinion of them. Again, I did not say anything positive about the owners, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I just see it as a big tournament, (below) should be the World Series rings that they give out.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....oL._SX385_.jpg

Not everyone buys into the class envy thing.

Now that you've finished running down people who have more than you (because they have more than you,) go out and buy a lottery ticket.

It definitely is. Being a minor league player isn’t like having your job. When the industry shuts down they’re still expected to maintain a certain physical condition, train and follow all team rules in the meantime (rules that may limit your employment opportunities depending on what activities your contract allows). However the team didn’t want to offer any salary for that commitment or resources. The team can’t offer team facilities and they didn’t offer to pay for private instruction either. They expect you to do all the things you would have for no pay and at your own expense AND to find a way to make a living outside of baseball on top of it.

When it comes to the major league players, the owners wanted to pay a 54 game salary regardless of how many games were played. If the season was 100 games, they wanted to pay for 54. The players are only now getting paid a prorated salary for every game they do play because of the Union. Not because the owners wanted to pay people to work.

Please offer any counterpoint of your choosing that demonstrates the players are asking for things you wouldn’t ask for at your own job.

Stereotypes are always dangerous. There are some of the rich who are trust fund babies and living it up. Some worked really hard for their money. Some screwed others to make their riches. Others still are philanthropists.

But I think a stereotype that is true is that the rich stay rich by doing everything they can to keep their money. Some argue that's sound business operation. Others argue they're heartless.

Full disclosure: My wife and I are strong union supporters. I don't believe in socialism, but laws helping redistribute wealth are needed. The good ol days - 1950s and 60s - had a higher level of wealth located within the middle class, and also had higher taxes. Many want America to be more economically like then, but they aren't willing to recreate the conditions that allowed the US to flourish.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I don’t know what this comment means. If you think players are millionaires playing a game aren’t you denigrating people for having more than you?

I didn't think I would care. I hate the rule changes, I don't respect the commissioner at all. However I'm looking forward to the games!

The part that is a factual claim is completely false. They are not and didn't try too refuse to pay players who are working. Some teams are not paying players that are not working. This is how it works in every industry. If I am an hourly employee, I still have to remember how to do my job and remain in physical condition good enough to do that job. The company does not pay you for the time spent exercising if your job has physical demands. Like 25% of this country was recently furloughed from their jobs too, they did not get paid, because they were not working. Your statement is factually wrong.

They are asking for things I wouldn't. Heck, I took a mandatory paycut happily a couple months ago, and then I issued myself a bigger paycut than I had to take so we could slightly improve our odds of survival as a company, and give a little more to my employees that make less and need it more immediately than I do. Revenues are down everywhere, not just for MLB that can't sell tickets anymore and missed almost 2/3 of the season completely. Most of us, who make a hell of a lot less, are in a similar boat, or much worse. The difference is they still have a mansion at the end of the day, and I'm not griping about my salary for the year.

Again, I'm not praising the owners or saying they are right. I said I find the constant griping from players to the media about how they don't make enough millions and are oppressed by the owners to be obnoxious. The owners are obnoxious too, but they aren't being rolled out as victims and they aren't the ones we go to the games to watch. I also said the owners did not attempt not to pay players who are working. That is not an opinion, that part is 100% true. I guess I should not be surprised a fact is controversial because one doesn't like it.

You are making claims that are 100% factually wrong, and then arguing against a perspective I did not express and do not hold rather than the one I stated. Makes this rather stupid and pointless.

To each their own. There could have been a 114 game season but the owners didn’t want to pay for it.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a pay cut or prorated salary and not paying people? The owners wanting to pay them less is entirely different from your claim that they tried not to pay people who are working (which is federally illegal even). This is the stupidest conversation we could possibly have. Good luck to you.

Why were some NHL's teams demonized for not paying their arena employees?


Because some did?

I don’t know how you strayed so far into HR. I’m saying the season is what it is because the owners didn’t want to pay for what it could have been. That is what I mean by not wanting to pay people to work.

I actually agree with the owners that a shorter season was most safe. The longer the season the greater risk of the season stopping due to another round of quarantine.

But I was disappointed the owners asked for additional paycuts beyond the prorated salaries. I understood why they asked, but I supported the players stance that the issue was already settled.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The owners wanted a short season in hopes of getting the playoffs done. Their TV contracts pay more for the post-season because it is basically national telecasts than they make on the regular season. THE MLBPA pointed this out in their arguments.

theres a reason they didnt want to pay for it they thought they would be losing money...just because someone has money doesnt mean they have to pay you 40 dollars for a can of soda....

I'm not rich but I save my money too. That's a bad thing?

I bolded the part where you advocate stealing from people simply because they have a lot.

If people build wealth by obeying laws, playing by the rules, then what they have belongs to them, and you and others need to learn to keep your greedy* hands off it.

*greed: Wanting to take what others have, because it's easier than earning it yourself.

I don't know about MLB, but after what I just heard about the NBA I am through with it and if what I hear about what the NFL is planning pans out I will be through with it. I have been an avid fan of all three since the late 70's. packs, you can have them.

Redistribution doesn't mean theft. It can be a wide range of ideas. But let's call it theft for the sake of your argument.

How come individuals made more "real wealth" in the 1960s than they do now? My generation is supposed to be the first to make less money than their parents. I would argue that the wealthy for 60 years has redistributed wealth to the top percentage of earners. Therefore they have literally been stealing for a hell of a long time from just about 99% of the population. And if that has been you, tsk tsk.

Now, moving beyond "theft", redistribution can be something as easy as businesses paying a higher share of health insurance instead of passing it on to employees. That's not theft. Redistribution could be increasing taxes to reduce college costs. I wouldn't consider that stealing. States used to pay a lot more in higher education funding, so really that would be returning to previous levels of funding.

Do you want more examples?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Explain how the wealthy redistributed wealth to the top earners. Are you saying wealthy people earned more money than less wealthy people?

That's rather self-evident, isn't it? Of course wealthy people earn (transfer wealth) more than non-wealthy people.

And what's that final comment about? And if that has been you, tsk tsk. You're thinking people who are successful need to be admonished for it? In your world, starting a company that grows huge, employs thousands of people, produces things people want and voluntarily pay for... is a bad thing?

Businesses view the compensation they pay their employees as one number. For instance, to an employer, paying someone $80,000 in salary + $10,000 in benefits = paying $70,000 in salary + $20,000 in benefits.

Some people, like you apparently, would prefer the smaller salary and bigger benefits package. I would prefer the higher salary, smaller benefits, and the ability to then get a high deductible health plan, and cover basic stuff like checkups, lab work, etc. out of pocket.

So, two guys graduate high school the same year. One wants to go to an over-priced party school and drink beer for 4 years. The other goes to work to support his family. In your mind, the working guy should be paying higher taxes to subsidize the college brat.

No. I see where you're coming from. Other people becoming mega-successful is bad. Sitting on your butt, watching others become successful, then expecting society (politicians) to take their productivity and "redistribute" it to people like you, is good.

When somebody else makes money, it does not hurt you. It obviously makes you angry and jealous, but it doesn't hurt you. I think you should spend more energy trying to improve your own situation honestly, and spend less time eyeing the wealth of others, trying to find a way to grab some of it for yourself.

It inherently is. Redistributing wealth is taking from some people, and giving what belonged to those people before the seizure to other people. Unless you think that everyone having their wealth taken away supports the seizure of their property, redistribution is theft.

Anyone who would like to redistribute their wealth may feel free to put their collections where their mouths are and mail me some of their pre-war cards. As a poor collector who can only afford low-grade beaters of players who were mostly not very good, I am in need. PM for shipping address.

Again, I don't think redistribution of wealth is theft. I do think it's unethical, but it's not theft. My tsk tsk comment was in reference to that. I'm also not socialist. I'm pro capitalism. My family and my life has been greatly influenced by capitalism. Redistribution of wealth is a very capitalist endeavor.

Now, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The wealthy have been redistributing and consolidating wealth for 60 years. Real wages / real wealth is not higher than that of the late 60s. If the wealthy have been able to change monetary laws, reduce taxes, and create stagnant wages, than the middle class has every right to undo these changes. The wealthy have reduced or eliminated taxes on capital gains, estate transfers, and taxes on wealth above certain percentages, and this has hurt the USA. We have stopped investing in infrastructure, and we wonder why we are about to be passed by China for most powerful economy.

Next, it is a false narrative to believe that taking lower benefits will increase your wages. Both benefits and wages have fallen since the 60s, creating less real wealth. Wages have not kept up with inflation, so middle class workers have less buying power today than 60 years ago. By stagnating wages, and introducing gig jobs (private contractor economy - Uber, Amazon deliveries, etc), CEOs are inflating profits to create dividends and other capital gains. Since the majority of stock wealth is possessed by the wealthiest citizens, these dividends are going directly into private accounts rather than strengthening the company. Further, private equity firms have learned how to buy a company (Toys R Us, Sears, etc) and stack the company with debt, while at the same time withdrawing profits from the company. The company then goes bankrupt, and the private equity firm walks away with the wealth, leaving behind debt and jobless employees to be sorted out by others. Pensions are turned over to Pension Guarantee, and the private equity firms score another victory.

No, redistribution of wealth is not theft. If it was, the wealthy wouldn't have been able to do what they've done. What the wealthy has done is completely legal and supports capitalism. Changing tax and income laws, reducing benefits and wages, getting rid of matching 401k payments, leeching wealth from companies, increasing part time work, increasing contract workers, and reducing full time employees is unethical, but it's legal, and it's not theft.

And it's every bit fair game for middle class workers to play by the same rules and begin to advocate for these changes to be undone. Undoing these changes will turn the stream of income slightly away from the wealthy and redistribute wealth back to the middle and lower class.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I think it helps to understand what redistribution of wealth means and to understand it's already in practice in every aspect of your life. It is not theft, it is government policy. When you get divorced and your assets are split, that is a redistribution of wealth that takes place on the individual level you’re talking about. But that is not how wealth is redistributed on a public scale. We have a progressive income tax, that's redistribution. We have charities you can donate to. That's redistribution of wealth too. Medicare is a redistribution of wealth. Things like public WiFi, public education and public libraries are a redistribution of wealth. Museums are a redistribution of wealth.

In political circles you will hear people talk about theft. But in your practical life it seems to be more or less accepted as the cost of doing business. It also leads to a lot of good things for people (like a free public education, being able to access the internet or going to the doctor).

I can’t say their names, but NP of CA has a net worth of $120 million, MW of VA has a net worth of $90 million, RB of CT has a net worth of $70, DF of CA has a net worth of $58 million, EW of MA has a net worth of $12 million. Does any anyone here who is not naive honestly believe that they are going to pass laws that will take their personal wealth or their billionaires donors personal wealth with no loopholes or havens to protect their own money? I have no doubt that will certainly try to clean out their wealthy enemies as soon as they take power in January but they will never pass laws that will allow their own wealth or their donors wealth to be touched.

A city's budget is a redistribution of wealth. Every city has one and every city passes one. It decides how your tax dollars are reinvested in the city. I don’t think it’s theft if people who have more money pay more in taxes that then benefit other people in the form of public services.

What does that have to do with taking wealth from liberal millionaires and billionaires and giving it to the less fortunate? Do you believe NP and MW are going to allow their own personal wealth to be confiscated? Hell no they aren’t.

It has nothing to do with it, which is the point. I don't know what your personal concepts of wealth redistribution are but there is nothing about the practice that relates to taking something from one individual and giving it to another individual, except in personal matters between two people (like in divorce). The vision you have of someone reaching into someone else's pockets and giving it to a third person is not what happens in practice. And a fear of wealth redistribution is unfounded because as I've pointed out, you are surrounded by wealth redistribution every day.

What you're talking about are taxes, something rich people have fought since there were taxes.

Oprah Winfrey, Bill Maher, Jay Z, Michael Moore, LeBron James, Al Gore, Michael Jordan, Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, and countless others are either multi multimillionaires or billionaires, should their wealth be confiscated?

Really don't care at all if they play this year.

Hell yes, I care. It's Major League Baseball. And while all the off-the-field stuff baffles me (millionaires and billionaires not able to sit down, and reach a compromise on how much richer they will all be, while the average American worries if the cost of a treatment for a virus will bankrupt them), and angers me, it's still baseball. I love the sport. I wish it were 162 games being played while our country was not divided, with people suffering and dying. With brutality against individuals because of their skin color on full display. That's not our reality, right now, and it may not be for a while.

We need to try and find anything we can that makes life better, even if it's just a few hours a week. Baseball will serve as a welcome respite from the suffering. If I can turn on a game, and not think about the negatives for a few hours, I'll find a little peace. Next Wednesday, I'll sign up for MLB.tv, and get ready for opening day.

Literally EVERY example of wealth distribution you gave is false.
A city budget for instance, is an allocation of funds generated through taxation.

According to Wikipedia: "The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity"

Does that sound like things you mentioned as wealth distribution? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be rude, but reading your comments, I don't think you really understand any of this.

And your last sentence again points out your bias against the rich... so the poor LOVE taxes and never fight them??????? Hilarious

Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.

Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.

In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.

What I said about the rich and taxes has nothing to do with bias. This country has a progressive income tax.

Double post.

You still don't get it....

If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?

By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.

Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...

.... yeah, that's fair.

The people you're talking about are children. They can't be held responsible for their finances. When NYC went to distance learning during the pandemic, they quickly encountered a problem. Not every student has a computer and not every family had the internet. What did the city do? Money was set aside to provide every student who needed a computer with one and the city continues to work on providing internet access. The city is doing this because students are entitled to an education.

There is no taking from someone else. If a high income school has already provided its students with a computer, why would they need funds to buy a second computer for its students? It wouldn't. So that money goes to a school who does.

There is ALWAYS taking from someone else. Funds don't magically appear and are never limitless. If NYC "set aside" money as you mentioned... where did it come from?? SOMEONE is paying for that.

You also ignore why the high income school had that computer to begin with... they contributed more. It's the same reason the low income school doesn't have that computer, they've contributed less. So even with your example, you end up with people getting something they didn't work or pay for.

And there SHOULD BE "income inequality". The United States is a capitalist country, everyone makes different amounts of money based on NUMEROUS factors. As an example, people DO NOT work equally, invest equally or create equally, they are NOT equally talented or able, nor do they all share the same intelligence... so in what deluded world should they EARN equally and all have the same?

The United States is THE bastion of opportunity and success where ANYONE can improve their life and make something more of themselves if they so choose.
The absolute truth is that success and well being reside with the individual and their choices, not society.

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

Everyone in this country today has the opportunity to become a millionaire no matter your race, your background, your circumstances or whatever.

Let me recommend a book to you. It’s called “Everyday Millionaires” by Chris Hogan. He has another book too titled “Retire Inspired” which I read a few months ago.

In “Everyday Millionaires,” Chris debunks all the myths that are associated with millionaires such as: millionaires make a lot of money, millionaires inherited all their wealth, millionaires went to prestigious universities, etc. None of this is true based on Chris’ study of over 10,000 millionaires - the largest study ever of millionaires. These are only society’s preconceived notions.

The truth is, you probably wouldn’t recognize most millionaires based on the typical stereotypes. Most millionaires don’t flash a lot of cash, they don’t live in expensive homes, they don’t drive expensive cars, they don’t buy expensive clothes, etc. The Everyday Millionaire is probably your next-door neighbor, your co-worker or maybe even a family member - people you would never suspect of being a millionaire.

In his book, Chris tells you how anybody can become a millionaire by building wealth, and it’s not hard. There is no magical secret. But first, you have to understand the difference between getting rich and building wealth. Most people want to get rich. They want it now - either by some get rich quick scheme, winning the lottery, risky fad investments, an inheritance from some rich uncle they never knew about, etc. - they don’t want to put in any time or effort, and unfortunately this is why most people never acquire millionaire status.

By contrast, most millionaires Chris studied built their wealth over a long period of time by investing in their employer-sponsored retirement plan (401k, 403b, etc.). Did you know that if you invest only $100 a month @ 12% interest from the time you’re age 25 to age 65 (40 years), that will make you a millionaire? Do that math. If you’re in your early to mid-twenties and you start investing that amount RIGHT NOW (or even more if you can do it), you are guaranteed to be a millionaire (and maybe even a multi-millionaire) by the time you retire. And that’s not even factoring in a company match (assuming your employer offers a match). There, I just showed you how to become a millionaire. Sure, it will take some time, but anyone is capable of doing it.

Anyway, the book has been a great inspiration to me and shows that anybody can do it. Chris shows how to overcome all the excuses and the victim mentality by factual statistics through his research.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, especially with the youth, their motto is “fake it to you make it.” But by trying to look rich and keeping up with the Jones’s, you’ll never will make it. Newsflash: The Jones’s may have all the stuff you want - fancy house, nice cars, fine clothes - but they’re flat broke, drowning in credit card debt and eventually they're headed for bankruptcy.

If you don't retire a millionaire, that is YOUR FAULT and nobody else's!

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

I always envisioned an America where a basic level of life is provided: education, fire and police, roads get paved. If a portion of my taxes are actually being used so the poorer neighborhoods around me can have a city pool or a library, then I feel that I'm keeping up my duty as a member of this society. To use the term "stealing" is offensive to me. It's beyond the debate of how much of my taxes go to whichever pot. We are such a low-tax country, yet we all want Uncle Sam to take care of us in our own way, but it's "stealing" if I don't get back, in some form, every penny I put in??

So if in our society, the "haves" and the "have nots" only get money for education that they can raise in their own district, Bottom line: poor districts will always be poor, and they will keep raising poorly educated students. And what's going to happen to the "haves?" The answer is obvious: they will be able to put more resources into making their educational system even better. All of which leads to that great promise: Make America Great Again for People With Money.

Do you support the National School Lunch Program? It provides no cost or reduced cost meals to students in public or non-profit schools who otherwise can't afford them. Again, this is a clear example of the redistribution of wealth. I personally don't think any student should go hungry. If you feel like a student who can't afford lunch doesn't get to eat lunch, it's not a perspective I agree with.

If you feel that anyone who has less than others should automatically be given more, and that the people who have more are solely responsible for that, it is not a perspective that I agree with.

It's not automatic. It's practical as I described above with the laptop program. A student who already has a computer doesn't need to be provided with one. There is a practical reason a student without a laptop would receive one; so they can participate in the public education they are entitled to. The cost is supplanted by the tax revenue everyone pays into, not just some people.

It's funny that people are entitled to an education according to you, but people aren't entitled to the wealth they've earned, as you want to redistribute it.
Can you honestly not grasp the hypocrisy of any of this?

And not everyone PAYS into the system the same, but you want everyone to HAVE the same... why not just be honest and admit you want socialism?

Every example I've provided is current government policy. And nothing about redistribution has anything to do with taking anyone's individual wealth. We are talking about how public funds are spent, which is money already collected.

Public education as a right is not my personal philosophy. This right is part of the 14th amendment.

NOTHING you mentioned is "redistribution of wealth"... absolutely NOTHING.
NOT ONE THING
Allocating tax dollars is NOT, and spending public money is NOT redistribution of wealth.
You are clueless as to the actual meaning. I can't help you.... I tried.

Bottom line Packs, it's not that I'm in disagreement with you regarding government programs and helping those who need help. I am NOT in favour of putting the burden on the rich, whatsoever. Redistribution of wealth is taking from the rich in my opinion, but we obviously won't agree. Those who volunteer it, good on them.

As a lifelong liberal, I've come to the conclusion that people need to be responsible for themselves, and as liberals, we're never honest in regards to how many people really have themselves to blame for their situation. Not all, but many. I've learnt that from experience.

That's just not a viewpoint I'll ever agree with. Appreciate the civil debate though.