Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the appeal to authority, I see. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible. For one thing, his initial premise is wrong. Private property existed prior to government. Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class

actually capitalism created the middle class not tax welfare of some kind! How on earth could taxes, say ,create an auto manufacturer that employs millions at middle class wages?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class (that conservative policy has shrunk the past 40 years by 10%) and created the functioning US society , as 'morality' is just bullshit!

Hardly. The fact that you don't question something doesn't make it moral. Slavery existed for thousands of years prior to the Civil War, and no one questioned it.

Taxes did not create the middle class. Capitalism did. Taxes did not create the automobile, the telephone, the television or any of the countless other modern conveniences we enjoy today.

 

[Dad2three]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

It is truly difficult to understand just how ignorant you are, EVEN WITH YOUR OWN POSTS AND LINKS. Look again at that last graph you posted. It tells us that the top earners earned 538% more money during the period covered but still pays the same old % of taxes. Are you even aware that that line alone tells us that the monetary quantity of taxes paid is also 528% more than was paid before this period of time? You need to learn to UNDERSTAND the graphs you post, most of which prove exactly the opposite of which you thought they said.

And in reference to Carter's job creation, he left over 9% unemployment for Reagan with stagflation which was crippling to our employment figures. Before Reagan was done, the rate was down to 5.3%.

Would YOU love to get a 538% increase in income and pay the same percentage in taxes? lol



CARTER 9% UNEMPLOYMENT? LOL


Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2





01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.


TRY AGAIN BUBBA!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the appeal to authority, I see. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible. For one thing, his initial premise is wrong. Private property existed prior to government. Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

cut and paste is all dumbto 3 does

 

[Dad2three]

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class (that conservative policy has shrunk the past 40 years by 10%) and created the functioning US society , as 'morality' is just bullshit!

Hardly. The fact that you don't question something doesn't make it moral. Slavery existed for thousands of years prior to the Civil War, and no one questioned it.

Taxes did not create the middle class. Capitalism did. Taxes did not create the automobile, the telephone, the television or any of the countless other modern conveniences we enjoy today.

Yeah, no one questioned slavery *shaking head*


Those things? THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE.

Think without BIG GOV'T ELECTRICITY AND PHONES WOULD'VE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE MAJOR METRO AREAS? Honesty try it!

 

[Dad2three]

Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?

Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class

actually capitalism created the middle class not tax welfare of some kind! How on earth could taxes, say ,create an auto manufacturer that employs millions at middle class wages?

Capitalism had been around for thousands of years, why did it take until the progressive period for the largest middle class the world has EVER known to be created?

 

[Dad2three]

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

cut and paste is all dumbto 3 does

Yes, I showed what the US Founders, including TJ wanted .. lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE.

Dear, the Romans and Stalin build roads, Steve Jobs built the iphone in a very very free capitalist society and within a free place within that society, the exact opposite of of Stalins govt loving society. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin?

 

[Dad2three]

Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the appeal to authority, I see. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible. For one thing, his initial premise is wrong. Private property existed prior to government. Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

AGAIN, Your OPINION....

 

[Dad2three]

THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE.

Dear, the Romans and Stalin build roads, Steve Jobs built the iphone in a very very free capitalist society and within a free place within that society, the exact opposite of of Stalins govt loving society. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin?

Got it, you can't critically think or be honest. I do know Ronnie Reagan snitched on people, yes...

 

[bripat9643]

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

AGAIN, Your OPINION....

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

 

[Dad2three]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

You and all your lemmings thanking you would have to write Obama about that one... Why didn't he and the Dem Senate and Congress do something about it when they had a super majority for 2 years, or even under Bush when they held the house and Senate for 2 years (Obama included).

Oh, because you only care when a Republican is President.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


AS DUBYA'S ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ AND LOSING 700,000+ JOBS A MONTH

 

[Dad2three]

Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

AGAIN, Your OPINION....

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

 

[Dad2three]

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

Unfortunately, the GOP has been just as complicit in letting them happen.

A real disappointment.

And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

Granted, the democrats are full blown AIDS.

But that doesn't make the GOP pleasant, by any means.

"And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge."

Weird, you mean a program that costs as much this decade that's 100% funded, Obamacares? And the GOP plan wasn't funded EVER? ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PROGRAM (BK) RIGHT?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AGAIN, Your OPINION....

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortunes in a foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!

 

[Dad2three]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
Wealth Redistribution = Theft
There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
Yes, it is just that simple.

Yes, simple minds generally come up with simple answers...

 

[Dad2three]

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortnes in an foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!

So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

of course thats absurd. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are Republicans and both running for president. That's a long long way from being a totally impotent Libertarians.

 

[Dad2three]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Deficits occur when the government spends more than it takes in.

So then why does the government always spend more than it takes in?

It's not that it doesn't take enough from us it's that it spends too much.

And the occasional surplus has not reduced the debt at all.

"It's not that it doesn't take enough from us it's that it spends too much.

And the occasional surplus has not reduced the debt at all."

Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues AS he took US to two UNFUNDED wars. Never claimed budget surpluses wiped out any debt... It did pay down some public debt under Clinton