Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[manifold]

No... your... repetition... that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth.

I agree, my repetition doesn't make it true. It's the fact that it's true, that makes it true. When you can conceive of a government that doesn't tax, you let me know. Until then, government will always be redistributing wealth. Your repeated denial of truth doesn't make it go away.

You seem to think it does.. with the ONLY 'proof' being your assertion

I've made several posts in support of my 'assertion', to which you have yet to post any sort of counter-argument. The best you've got is grandstanding about non-sequiturs. I don't care how right you are or think you are, that's an underwhelming and unconvincing strategy every time.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree, my repetition doesn't make it true. It's the fact that it's true, that makes it true. When you can conceive of a government that doesn't tax, you let me know. Until then, government will always be redistributing wealth. Your repeated denial of truth doesn't make it go away.

You seem to think it does.. with the ONLY 'proof' being your assertion

I've made several posts in support of my 'assertion', to which you have yet to post any sort of counter-argument. The best you've got is grandstanding about non-sequiturs. I don't care how right you are or think you are, that's an underwhelming and unconvincing strategy every time.

But whatcha gonna do?

No.. you made additional assertions of your opinion.... like a self appointed know-it-all.. which is the best that you have... speaking of unconvincing strategy

Try going back to school or reading exactly what a government is in it's base form... instead of asserting what you want it to be as some definition

 

[DiamondDave]

AND AGAIN... answer the fucking question

Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??

 

[manifold]

I already told you I don't do non-sequiturs and I don't feel any obligation to defend a position I have never taken.

My foundational position is that government is impossible without taxation, and taxation by definition is the collection and redistribution of wealth.

If I cannot get you to agree with this then we are at an impasse and cannot advance this discussion any further.

 

[Bern80]

Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.

People do that every time they take out a home loan - or any loan for that matter - shit for brains.

Taking out a loan that has a manageable repayment method is a bit different than simply assuming you will have more money tomorrow so it doesn't matter if you burn through some now.

 

[DiamondDave]

I already told you I don't do non-sequiturs and I don't feel any obligation to defend a position I have never taken.

My foundational position is that government is impossible without taxation, and taxation by definition is the collection and redistribution of wealth.

If I cannot get you to agree with this then we are at an impasse and cannot advance this discussion any further.

Yes you DID take that position... point blank... it is in the thread history...

Your foundation is that government equates to wealth redistribution.. which is not inherent with the concept of taxation... taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it... epic fail;... and yet another try by you to present your assertion as definition or proof...

You sir, are either an arrogant self-appointed know-it all, or ignorant as fuck

 

[manifold]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The reality is that without the "rich", there is much less opportunity for the poor to become unpoor or even to do more than subsist.

The idea that the economy cannot produce unless wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few is frankly retarded.

I'm buying a house right now - I'm borrowing $160,000. I have no idea if the money for that loan came from one man with $160,000 or 160 people with $1000 each - and I don't care. Neither does the seller or the economy.

The majority of net new jobs are created by SMALL businesses anyway.

You cannot 'punish' or take wealth from the rich without hurting the poor.

Oh fucking cry me a river, its been the same old trickle down bullshit since Reagan and guess what? It still doesn't work. Rich people don't make jobs, demand for goods and services makes jobs. If a rich man doesn't take advantage of an opportunity in the economy some less rich man with a bank loan and some ambition will come along and take advantage of it.


Seriously if your house needed fixing - would you wait for a rich man to come along and tell you that it needs fixing?

Many here are not making a distinction between income and wealth; however these are not the same thing. Income, however, is a component of a person's wealth.

Income and wealth aren't even measured with the same units and they don't always correlate. Heck ask anyone who owns a carpet cleaning or landscaping business or any kind of home service business who they have more trouble collecting bills from? Its the folks in the country club - living above their means, pretending to be richer than they are - that don't pay the carpet cleaner guy on time. Meanwhile middle class folks living in decent but not rich neighborhoods don't order a carpet cleaning service or a home repair service unless they've budgeted the money to pay for it.

 

[frazzledgear]

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 just pulled the typical liberal stunt of trying to change the subject to something you'd rather discuss -and then try to pretend the immorality rises to the same level and causes the same kind of damage to society. Oil subsidies have nothing to do with this thread, it isn't the same kind of thing - one poses a threat to the very character of a people and harms people individual by individual. The other is needlessly putting a middleman in the middle of the supply-and-demand equation and anytime you do that, it will force people to pay even more for their goods and services than they would without the middle man. Each additional middle man takes his cut first before moving the money and/or product down the line to the consumer -even government. ESPECIALLY government.

So let's your cheesy shift in subject out of the way right here. I think all subsidies of any kind for businesses should end. Anything government touches, it only makes it more expensive for everyone. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" which only forces taxpayers to foot the bill for the most inefficient, most wasteful, least productive businesses who are selling products the people didn't want in the first place -which is why they are failing in the first place! Which makes NO sense -because once again, it is punishing the most successful while rewarding the worst!

Failed businesses cause temporary pain but long term gain. The left thinks avoiding the short term pain is preferable when in reality that pain multiplies over time. Other companies absorb the failed one or the failed is broken up and absorbed by many -who will either figure out how to make a product the public wants for a price they are willing to pay, or go under themselves until someone does it right. I don't want government subsidizing businesses to find alternative sources of energy -after all the fucking years government has been doing that, we the taxpayers stuck footing the bill for BILLIONS for it -have nothing to show for it. If its a good idea private investors will get in on the action -and if they can't convince private investors to jump in where do fucking politicians get off forcing taxpayers on the hook for it instead?? If its such a bad idea private investors won't risk their money on it, then taxpayers should NOT be forced to risk theirs instead!

But in the case of oil companies, they aren't even failing! The subsidies are given to encourage and help defray the cost of exploration and drilling for new sources with the silly notion that at least taxpayers might recoup some of their money at the pump where the price MAY end up being a few cents cheaper.

Its a screwy idea and an anti-free market idea at that. Oil compaines make plenty of money, they are still going to explore and drill with or without those subsidies and they can bear the up front costs of doing so all by themselves. Of course those costs will be passed on to consumers at the pump. That's the way it works and I have no problem with that. But at least what I will end up paying will be based on my own personal consumption instead of some cookie cutter one-size fits all share of the burden of subsidizing it as a taxpayer! As if I OWE oil companies even more of MY money in order to go look for more oil they are going to go looking for anyway -and will still pass on the costs of that exploration, drilling and refining right on to me as a consumer no matter what. Subsidizing them only puts another middleman into the equation. EVERY middle man takes a cut of the money before moving it on -so adding middle men between you and the goods or serves you want means you will definitely end up spending more than if you just paid for it directly yourself. So let's pay for it directly and cut out government subsidies, cut out government as some kind of middle man along with the cut government takes in the process!

As for the original question which is what this thread is about -I believe it is immoral to the max for government to confiscate what one person has earned for himself -in order to give it to someone who did not. (Not cannot, DID not.) NOBODY objects to providing legitimate assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves and nobody objects to providing short term assistance with the full expectation it IS short term and intended to provide a temporary cushion while getting back on your feet -not as a way of life. This notion that government is supposed to make life "more fair" for people is impossible. You can't make life fair and all attempts to make it fair only imposes unfairness on someone else. People are not equally creative, ambitious, driven, innovative -so the only way for government to even PRETEND it can make life fair - is by making life even more unfair for someone else. Which is MORE unfair? Someone who didn't work to earn it not having it -or someone who busted their ass to earn it see it confiscated by government and given to someone else? That is FAR more immoral to say nothing of being counterproductive! Redistribution of the wealth is an ideology that views the successful as a class that must be punished and made an example of -even while those intent on confiscating what they earned insist they aren't. Its a lie -when you confiscate from a man what he has earned in order to give it someone who did not -you have punished the guy who worked and you have punished his success at what he does. Instead of encouraging others to emulate him, you send a message to EVERYONE that if this guy had just failed instead of being successful -government would have rewarded him for it with the money someone had worked to earn. And gee, isn't it better to sit on your ass and save your energy to fill out all that government paperwork instead? HELPING someone with constant handouts -is not helping them. It is soul destroying and no kindness. IT IS CRUEL!

Our system has increasingly been rewarding more and more people for the poor decisions they have made -while trying to relieve them of the natural consequences of those poor decisions and foist them off on those who made good decisions because they wanted to avoid the bad consequences in the first place! Where is the morality in that? People only stop making poor decisions when they realize the only way to avoid the unpleasant consequences for them is to start making better decisions! Foisting them off on those who made other decisions in order to avoid those consequences is disgusting, cripples the individual even further, increases the likelihood the individual will continue making poor decisions for himself -and therefore is anything but moral.

 

[DiamondDave]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

Again... your OPINION... which is ALL you based your definitions on.... There is a HUGE difference between administration and redistribution

 

[The T]

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.

Hey, I've got a great idea.......

Why doesn't the government give back all of the money to those who earned it?????:

First Goverment would have to admit that the money isn't theirs to start with.

 

[Foxfyre]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. (Wiki)

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. (Business Dictionary)

That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.

 

[CountofTuscany]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. (Wiki)

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. (Business Dictionary)

That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.

Exactly. One provides services available to all or any who choose to use them. The other provides funding to selct individuals. You can't take your police service and go buy a steak with it. You can't take your share of road maintanance and go buy a beer with it.

 

[DiamondDave]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. (Wiki)

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. (Business Dictionary)

That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.

But.. the key is... redistribution of wealth is not government.. nor is it an inherent part of government... governments can and do take part in that practice, but that does not make government a system of wealth redistribution

 

[The T]

A distinction without a difference IMO.

There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. (Wiki)

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. (Business Dictionary)

That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.

But.. the key is... redistribution of wealth is not government.. nor is it an inherent part of government... governments can and do take part in that practice, but that does not make government a system of wealth redistribution

*TAKING* by force the treasure of one individual to embellish another was never the goal, or intent of the Framers.

They instead chose to tax Commerce of the individual, where the individual would have a say by participating in such commerce, or not.

Part of the recipe of true liberty that is no longer taught in this nation my friend.

1913 was a BAD YEAR for Liberty...

 

[manifold]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

Again... your OPINION... which is ALL you based your definitions on.... There is a HUGE difference between administration and redistribution

In your opinion. Which apparently differs from mine.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[The T]

...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...

A distinction without a difference IMO.

There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. (Wiki)

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. (Business Dictionary)

That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.

Laid out for all to see. What we have now sadly are those that think that they're entitled to it for thier life's poor choices...and THEY have been taught this...it's sad and maddening as Hell.

 

[The T]

And a WORD to the wise? *YOU* are NOT entitled to my wallet because *YOU* refuse to exercise your liberty wisely.

Learn it, Live it, Know it.

 

[Rodack]

democrats steal trillions and trillions of wealth then get shot in the head like in AZ, still having the audacity to act surprised.....why? why?

Is anyone really surprised?



a thief got shot


Nothing more

 

[DiamondDave]

A distinction without a difference IMO.

Again... your OPINION... which is ALL you based your definitions on.... There is a HUGE difference between administration and redistribution

In your opinion. Which apparently differs from mine.

Glad we cleared that up.

No... in actuality,, you can look up the definition of government... and of taxation.. and nowhere in there is there anything about redistribution..

Sorry.. that is FACT

Go back to school, son