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

[georgephillip]

Neither has proven to be a viable alternative on a macro scale, pretty simple.

Neither has received billion$ in taxpayer subsidies over the past century, unlike fossil fuels.
Even simpler.

Sorry, that's a lie.

Yes. It was.
"Fossil-fuel consumers worldwide received about six times more government subsidies than were given to the renewable-energy industry, according to the chief adviser to oil-importing nations.

"State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said today in its World Energy Outlook. Aid for biofuels, wind power and solar energy, rose 10 percent to $66 billion."
Sorry.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

 

[editec]

The petroleum industry is the biggest WELFARE QUEEN in the USA.

It is also the oldest WELFARE QUEEN in our history, too.

The Petroleum industry has been getting oil depletion welfare since...

...the year 1913 marked the first time a Big Oil subsidy was written into the tax code.

The Revenue Act of 1913 allowed oil companies to write off 5 percent of the costs from oil and gas wells beginning March 1 of that year. (For reference, see pages 172-174 of the Act.) A century later, oil companies can now deduct three times this rate, at 15 percent, although the very largest companies no longer qualify. The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.

 

[rdean]

The government has been redistributing wealth for several decades. Neither party has done anything to stop the taxation of the masses in order to pay for the poor. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, yet every ten years they have a new idea for helping those 'in need'. And of course Democrats just believe money grows out of thin air and blank checks are acceptable. As long as they can steal your rights they're happy to pay a meager salary to the poor, for being poor.

Republicans love to attack the poor as the "problem". Let me say it again:



Redistribution of wealth:



1. Bush tax cuts for the rich



2. Oil Subsidies



3. Farm subsidies



4. Tax write off's for the wealthy



That's the true redistribution of wealth. Get this, the Red States are terrible economic failures and the only thing that keeps them from going bankrupt is the infusion of money from Blue States.

Woah there, guy. Not a Republican. But if you want to say California is doing better than Texas then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Just do a google search or something. And read my post next time before you copy and paste meaningless drivel.

California pays nearly twice as much to the federal government as Texas.

Stunning turnaround: California has budget surpluses as far as LAO can see - San Jose Mercury News

 

[Sallow]

But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

You libertarians occupy a fantasyland where rules, infrastructure and life in general come ready made and are at your disposal for exploitation. You stand on the shoulders of others...of the efforts of others. You are no island. Start showing a little goddam gratitude to the people that made your lifestyle possible.

Article I, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Absolutely correct.

 

[Sallow]

True enough its not COMMON sense but it should be. People know things aren't right.Far from marxist blather,its truth and facts and I am not a communist. You know that.

So far you haven't given anyone any reason to believe it. It's just your prejudice. And your theory that labor has some intrinsic value is a Marxist theory.



According to economists they are paid more because their skills are in demand. It has nothing to do with charity on the part of their employer.



What do you consider "jumping through hoops," doing actual useful work?



You mean even if they have no skills? Even if they are lazy, shiftless and incompetent?

[You should pay them more. If that is their chosen job or only job they can find its horrible to only pay them 80$ a month to cut your lawn,either pay them more or cut it yourself.

60 to 80 other customers also pay him $80. He makes a good living. Why should I pay any more than he's willing to do the job for?

Then the government should have programs like Hitler's Germany did that allowed EVERYONE to work. Races weren't meant to mix and mingle like we have here,the laziness of the black race has rubbed off on the white race here and its slowly destroying this country.

Maybe you should find a new country to call home.

We are a nation of immigrants. Lots of mixing has been going on. And the country is just getting stronger. Unlike the Nazis who got a beat down.

By us.

 

[Sallow]

You mean you think your post wasn't an ad hominem?

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

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.

 

[TRFjr]

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

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

 

[rdean]

Funny how right wingers want to send troops all over the world to fight everyone, yet don't want the wealthy, who have the most to lose, to pay for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cannot have a functioning nation without the power to tax. Anyone who claims taxation is theft is either

an anarchist or is someone whose definition of theft is absurdly broad enough to mean that no government can exist without thievery.

 

[Sallow]

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

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

It's you that doesn't have a clue about capitalism.

Part and parcel with a robust capitalistic economic system is government controls.

Government insures a safe environment, a safe and trusted market, a system of minting currency, competition, legal protections of ideas and innovation, infrastructure, an educated workforce and many other things that makes capitalism possible.

You government haters should check out Somalia.

Now THAT'S "Free Market" capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

The petroleum industry is the biggest WELFARE QUEEN in the USA.

It is also the oldest WELFARE QUEEN in our history, too.

The Petroleum industry has been getting oil depletion welfare since...

...the year 1913 marked the first time a Big Oil subsidy was written into the tax code.

The Revenue Act of 1913 allowed oil companies to write off 5 percent of the costs from oil and gas wells beginning March 1 of that year. (For reference, see pages 172-174 of the Act.) A century later, oil companies can now deduct three times this rate, at 15 percent, although the very largest companies no longer qualify. The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.

1913.
The same year our most recent incarnation of a central bank appeared.
When Jefferson wrote about banks that issue their own currency and the corporations that will grow up around them, I wonder if he imagined the War to End All Wars?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Republicans love to attack the poor as the "problem". Let me say it again:







Redistribution of wealth:







1. Bush tax cuts for the rich







2. Oil Subsidies







3. Farm subsidies







4. Tax write off's for the wealthy







That's the true redistribution of wealth. Get this, the Red States are terrible economic failures and the only thing that keeps them from going bankrupt is the infusion of money from Blue States.

Woah there, guy. Not a Republican. But if you want to say California is doing better than Texas then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Just do a google search or something. And read my post next time before you copy and paste meaningless drivel.

California pays nearly twice as much to the federal government as Texas.



Stunning turnaround: California has budget surpluses as far as LAO can see - San Jose Mercury News

They pay based on population to the Federal government. Guess which state has more people in it. Yes, California. That's why they pay more in taxes to the federal government. There's no conspiracy going on between the left and right on paying the taxes from the state to the Fed.

The fact remains that California has been over spending and they're trying to recover from the brink of bankruptcy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

California pays nearly twice as much to the federal government as Texas.

They pay based on population to the Federal government.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

So far you haven't given anyone any reason to believe it. It's just your prejudice. And your theory that labor has some intrinsic value is a Marxist theory.



According to economists they are paid more because their skills are in demand. It has nothing to do with charity on the part of their employer.



What do you consider "jumping through hoops," doing actual useful work?



You mean even if they have no skills? Even if they are lazy, shiftless and incompetent?



60 to 80 other customers also pay him $80. He makes a good living. Why should I pay any more than he's willing to do the job for?

Then the government should have programs like Hitler's Germany did that allowed EVERYONE to work. Races weren't meant to mix and mingle like we have here,the laziness of the black race has rubbed off on the white race here and its slowly destroying this country.

Maybe you should find a new country to call home.

We are a nation of immigrants. Lots of mixing has been going on. And the country is just getting stronger. Unlike the Nazis who got a beat down.

By us.

This country is swirling down the toilet bowl. The more of the Democrat agenda that gets passed, the faster down it goes.

 

[ShawnChris13]

California pays nearly twice as much to the federal government as Texas.

They pay based on population to the Federal government.

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.

 

[georgephillip]

"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?'

"The question was passed to one of the candidates, who punted, and then the moderator changed the topic.

"Only Congressman Ron Paul gave a serious post-debate answer to the young man’s question: 'All of it.'”

Taxation is theft -- so why do Americans put up with it? | Fox News

 

[Derideo_Te]

They pay based on population to the Federal government.

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.

 

[RightDown]

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

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.

 

[ShawnChris13]

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.

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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".