Thomas More Quotes

We’ve taken care not to penalize the wealthy but we have to redistribute some income …It is through reform that we can obtain fairness in the modern world…A reformed welfare state is the only way to obtain social justice.

We do not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equal shares on stated occasions. We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonable leisure, and a decent living throughout life is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.

As liberty can never subsist without equality, nor equality be long preserved without an agrarian law, or something like it; so when men’s riches are become immeasurably or surprisingly great, a people, who regard their own security, ought to make a strict enquiry how they came by them, and oblige them to take down their own size, for fear of terrifying the community, or mastering it.

Unless you’re at the very top, you need a more equitable economy.

Of course we want prosperity, but we wish prosperity in such a way … so that everybody will get his share, and that it will not be confined to a few who monopolize the means of production or the means of transportation, and thus prevent that equality of distribution that we all like to see.

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to egalitarians, to people obsessed with fairness, to American presidential candidates in the year 2000 - to everyone who believes that wealth should be redistributed. And that message is clear and concise: Go to Hell.

Whereas it has long been known and declared that the poor have no right to the property of the rich, I wish it also to be known and declared that the rich have no right to the property of the poor.

Our goal is a classless society.

It is important that there be a uniform, equal citizenry, evenly distributed over the various provinces of the island, and free from extremes in wealth and poverty. His intention, as he phrases it, is “not completely to destroy private property, since this is impossible, but to enclose it within more narrow boundaries, to give it a measure, a rule, a bridle which restrains it, which directs it, which subdues it, and always keeps it subordinate to the public good.

The wealthy have a responsibility to invest in addressing inequality. This is especially true when constraints on others are so great.

Aggressive land reform would be far less destabilizing than a violent revolt.

In a good society, those in the middle and at the bottom ought to benefit significantly from economic growth. When the country prospers, everybody should prosper.

Since Mill, in 1848, wrote his chapter on the future of the working classes, the question of the distribution of wealth has be-come of still greater importance. We cannot look round on the political phenomena of to-day without seeing that this question is at the root of them. We see the perplexity in which men stand, and the divisions springing up in our great political parties, because of the uncertainty of politicians how to grapple with it.

There is the freedom from want, despair and psychological insecurity that would come from having income sufficient to provide the necessities of life. But there is also the freedom to choose not to work for a time in order to take care of family members, pursue a passion, acquire education or contribute to a worthwhile community project. There is the freedom to start a new business with an uncertain future, the freedom to say yes to a job that pays little but yields joy and satisfaction — and the freedom to say no to a job that pays too little or is demeaning and unpleasant. Why, they ask, should such freedoms be reserved only for the wealthy?

When I speak of The Case for Equality I mean human equality; and that, of course, can only mean one thing: it means equality of income.

Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying.

The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality.

A conservative is a fellow who thinks a rich man should have a square deal.

I am a social democrat - I believe in pursuing greater equality and tackling social justice - but... you can't do that unless you have got a strong economy, unless you have got a vibrant business base earning the wealth that makes that possible.

The issue of wealth inequality is ... the great moral issue of our time.

Power always follows Property. This I believe to be as infallible a Maxim, in Politicks, as, that Action and Re-action are equal, is in Mechanicks. Nay I believe We may advance one Step farther and affirm that the Ballance of Power in a Society, accompanies the Ballance of Property in Land. The only possible Way then of preserving the Ballance of Power on the side of equal Liberty and public Virtue, is to make the Acquisition of Land easy to every Member of Society: to make a Division of the Land into Small Quantities, So that the Multitude may be possessed of landed Estates. If the Multitude is possessed of the Ballance of real Estate, the Multitude will have the Ballance of Power, and in that Case the Multitude will take Care of the Liberty, Virtue, and Interest of the Multitude in all Acts of Government.

The men of middling property and poor men can never be safe in a mixed representation with the men of over-grown property.

We must be thoroughly democratic and patronize everybody without distinction of class.

The law is equal before all of us; but we are not all equal before the law

In order to have economic democracy you have to have equal access to property.