Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[ShawnChris13]

So you believe that YOU are ENTITLED to all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work without paying for them.

I'm not going to get all bold letters on you or anything. Before income taxes we managed to win 8 wars, have roads, fire fighters, and police. Not to mention the other various infrastructure services.



There are more taxes than income taxes. My point was very specific. If you would stop your brain from knee jerk reactions and think about how specific my point was I'm sure you could agree.



Woodrow Wilson signed in the Federal Reserve (after Andrew Jackson worked so hard to keep bankers from printing our currency) and then he gave the people that had the power to print money a guaranteed revenue stream that could only grow exponentially alongside the population.



If you were wondering why a dollar is worth so much less today than a hundred years ago it is because of a long string of terrible decisions that all started with Woodrow Wilson. He couldn't even get world leaders to listen to his pragmatic 16 points. I hate Woodrow Wilson. Almost as much as I hate income taxes. Which are theft. Which don't pay for the fire department, roads, or police. And I don't speak for me, I believe we all are entitled to the basic infrastructure our government can provide without borrowing money from China and without starting fake wars every few years. Everybody.

With all due respect that incoherent rambling says volumes about why you believe nonsense like "Income taxes are theft".

My bad I didn't mean to use historical context to give background to my point. I'll stick to smaller sentences. Thank you for deflecting, you may now continue your 'nuh-uh' arguments with everyone else.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Why do you refuse to touch the wealth transfer from the middle class to the top 1%? Why do you refuse to deal with their theft of money from the middle class since they failed to "create jobs" as was originally claimed that they would?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Why do you refuse to touch the wealth transfer from the middle class to the top 1%? Why do you refuse to deal with their theft of money from the middle class since they failed to "create jobs" as was originally claimed that they would?

Just as I predicted: The attempts to change the subject are coming thick and fast.

ANYTHING but discuss how the govt wealth redistribution so prized by the leftists, is nothing more than theft and distribution of stolen goods. Oh gawd, we can't talk about THAT!!!

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

 

[Moonglow]

I find what the govt. is doing is no worse than the use of taxpayers monies to support the rich in making more money and not investing it back into the US of A.

 

[bripat9643]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Why do you refuse to touch the wealth transfer from the middle class to the top 1%? Why do you refuse to deal with their theft of money from the middle class since they failed to "create jobs" as was originally claimed that they would?

Tax cuts are not income redistribution. Your imbecile theory has already been debunked 1000 times.

 

[bripat9643]

I find what the govt. is doing is no worse than the use of taxpayers monies to support the rich in making more money and not investing it back into the US of A.

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

 

[bripat9643]

So you believe that YOU are ENTITLED to all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work without paying for them.

I'm not going to get all bold letters on you or anything. Before income taxes we managed to win 8 wars, have roads, fire fighters, and police. Not to mention the other various infrastructure services.

There are more taxes than income taxes. My point was very specific. If you would stop your brain from knee jerk reactions and think about how specific my point was I'm sure you could agree.

Woodrow Wilson signed in the Federal Reserve (after Andrew Jackson worked so hard to keep bankers from printing our currency) and then he gave the people that had the power to print money a guaranteed revenue stream that could only grow exponentially alongside the population.

If you were wondering why a dollar is worth so much less today than a hundred years ago it is because of a long string of terrible decisions that all started with Woodrow Wilson. He couldn't even get world leaders to listen to his pragmatic 16 points. I hate Woodrow Wilson. Almost as much as I hate income taxes. Which are theft. Which don't pay for the fire department, roads, or police. And I don't speak for me, I believe we all are entitled to the basic infrastructure our government can provide without borrowing money from China and without starting fake wars every few years. Everybody.

With all due respect that incoherent rambling says volumes about why you believe nonsense like "Income taxes are theft".

All taxes are theft. You have been singularly unable to prove otherwise, so who is doing the incoherent rambling?

 

[TRFjr]

It's you that needs to do the reading.

Absolutely nothing that Obama's done has been "anti-capitalist".

Quite the contrary, Obama has set a foundation that will assure Capitalism's success, unlike, say, President Reagan, who oversaw multiple financial failures. Same with George W. Bush.

you have no clue what capitalism is if you think Obama agenda is pro-capitalism


Capitalism Definition
1.An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Free Market Definition
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control

The ACA is a market based solution to the healthcare coverage crisis. A republican idea advanced by Obama

Cap and Trade is a market based solution to the pollution problem. A republican idea advanced by Obama.

The means of production in both instances are owned by private hands. The government sure isn't the owner.

My question to you is, "How is Obama's agenda not for the benefit of capitalism?

The ACA does not mandate that people must own health insurance. There is still bargaining in the market...it's as free as ever.

because the ACA and Cap and Trade both have massive government control

 

[Moonglow]

I find what the govt. is doing is no worse than the use of taxpayers monies to support the rich in making more money and not investing it back into the US of A.

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

75 billion a month in bonds.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Why do you refuse to touch the wealth transfer from the middle class to the top 1%? Why do you refuse to deal with their theft of money from the middle class since they failed to "create jobs" as was originally claimed that they would?

Just as I predicted: The attempts to change the subject are coming thick and fast.

ANYTHING but discuss how the govt wealth redistribution so prized by the leftists, is nothing more than theft and distribution of stolen goods. Oh gawd, we can't talk about THAT!!!

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Your refusal to address the wealth redistribution to the top 1% negates your OP and your credibility. Have a nice day.

 

[bripat9643]

Nonsense. They pay based on income, and based on "Who can we trick into paying the most without their getting so angry at us that they vote us out of office?". Which is why increasing numbers of people (other than those who earn a lot) pay little or no income tax at all.



People haven't paid to the govt base on population since WWI.



Back to the subject of the thread:

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.



Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Regardless higher population means more income.

Income taxes are theft, but indirect taxes are necessary in order for the government to function.

So you believe that YOU are ENTITLED to all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work without paying for them.

Income taxes don't pay for any of that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

With all due respect that incoherent rambling says volumes about why you believe nonsense like "Income taxes are theft".

All taxes are theft. You have been singularly unable to prove otherwise

Because it was already proven otherwise, in the OP. He didn't have to do it again.

Poor little bripat. Didn't even read the OP, did we?

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you refuse to touch the wealth transfer from the middle class to the top 1%? Why do you refuse to deal with their theft of money from the middle class since they failed to "create jobs" as was originally claimed that they would?

Just as I predicted: The attempts to change the subject are coming thick and fast.

ANYTHING but discuss how the govt wealth redistribution so prized by the leftists, is nothing more than theft and distribution of stolen goods. Oh gawd, we can't talk about THAT!!!

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Your refusal to address the wealth redistribution to the top 1% negates your OP and your credibility. Have a nice day.

There is no wealth redistribution to the top 1%.

There: your point is addressed.

 

[bripat9643]

With all due respect that incoherent rambling says volumes about why you believe nonsense like "Income taxes are theft".

All taxes are theft. You have been singularly unable to prove otherwise

Because it was already proven otherwise, in the OP. He didn't have to do it again.

Poor little bripat. Didn't even read the OP, did we?

No, the OP didn't disprove that all taxes are theft. They all meet the definition of theft, whether they are direct or indirect.

Theft: taking that which doesn't belong to you without the owners explicit consent.

How does any tax not fit that description?

You're as bad as the libtards. You only want to take your premises so far so you can defend your precious government.

 

[bripat9643]

I find what the govt. is doing is no worse than the use of taxpayers monies to support the rich in making more money and not investing it back into the US of A.

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

 

[ShawnChris13]

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

It can be said that the $85 billion a month being pushed out by the Federal Reserve is what's keeping the current bubble from bursting. As soon as the Fed stops pushing in so much a month, stocks are going to fall and interest rates are going to go up. So I would buy property now, and then sell it with a higher interest rate and then use the pocket change from that to buy the stocks that are going to fall and wait until they rise back up in a few quarters.

 

[georgephillip]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

One of the unstated premises of your argument is the government, farmer, and yourself exist as equals under the law. Without government there is no law; you have no money, and the farmer no land upon which to grow apples.

You are skilled at asking questions.
Answer this one:

"At one of last year’s Republican presidential debates, a young man asked the moderator to pose the following question to the candidates: 'If I earn a dollar, how much of it am I entitled to keep?'”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/18/taxation-is-theft-so-why-do-americans-put-up-with-it/

 

[georgephillip]

Regardless higher population means more income.

Income taxes are theft, but indirect taxes are necessary in order for the government to function.

So you believe that YOU are ENTITLED to all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work without paying for them.

Income taxes don't pay for any of that.

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

 

[bripat9643]

So you believe that YOU are ENTITLED to all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work without paying for them.

Income taxes don't pay for any of that.

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.