Is "robbing Peter to pay Paul", something that any govt should ever routinely do?

[Little-Acorn]

Obamacare forces people who earn more, to hand resources to people who earn less. The excuse is that they need it for health insurance. Is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" this way, something government should EVER engage in?

Is this a better idea than using the same amount of effort to persuade people to give voluntarily, by setting up charitable organizations, having funds drives and marathons etc.? It's an effort that has never been pushed as hard as the push for "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Especially considering that forcing people to give you things, is theft... and when officially sanctioned by government, becomes a direct violation of the rights government is supposed to safeguard?

Is this theft and violation of fundamental rights by the U.S. Government, a "better idea" than the alternatives they've never really tried?

 

[bucs90]

Try this:

Defund the military. Yep. 100% no funds.

And tell America, that the military will now function ONLY off charitable donations by citizens.

And see how quickly it implodes.

People are already greedy, especially rich people; But people in general.

Its why roads aren't built by Wal-Mart or Microsoft or BMW....even though each company needs roads to survive. No, they pitch in by taxes. Like everyone else.

Imagine that? If we made it voluntary. But, how can we be sure everyone pitches in? You cant. Its why we have taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

Try this:

Defund the military. Yep. 100% no funds.

And tell America, that the military will now function ONLY off charitable donations by citizens.

And see how quickly it implodes.

.

If the entire government was funded this way, I'll bet the military would have no trouble getting the funds it needs. Social Security, on the other hand,wouldn't get a dime



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk