Wealth Redistribution

[Wiseacre]

I have not read the latest posts; I will later. There are in America certain truths, I want to outline them as succinctly as possible to set out my position in this thread before replying again. If you think them untrue, support your position with references.

What you are offering are opinions, not truths. Truths can br proven, none of what you're saying here falls in that category.

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

So what? Why isn't it a good thing that someone in this country can get rich ?

A society that is more equal functions better than one in which only a few possess wealth.

I don't think only a few possess wealth in this country. Not when I see homeless people with electronic gizmos that I don't have, or people collecting welfare checks who have big screen TVs and home entertainment centers. The standard of living in this country is pretty damn good, and from what I've read the inequiity of consumption is not all that great.

No one on the left is claiming we should all be equal.

Really? Doesn't sound that way to those of us onthe right.

Wealth can only be created in a society of citizens with a recognized and respected government.

Non Sequitur, what does this signify?

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

What do you mean, manage the country? According to who's view? Bullshit, the gov't is supposed to provide those services that individuals cannot do for themselves, such as national defense and security. The gov't has no right at all to ensure the wealth of the nation supports the poeple, that's for the people themselves to support themselves.

The best periods in America history were when taxes were highest for the rich.

Taxes have always been highest on the rich. ????

Reducing taxes for the wealthy does not create jobs.

Raising taxes on the rich will sure as hell cost jobs. You tell me, how many jobs do you think poor people create?

The proof of any policy is in its accomplishments. The pudding still counts.

At last, common ground. Not much of a point to this statement tho.

Republican policies of supporting the wealthy have failed for nearly 100 years. Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos.

This is nonsense. Did we not have a good economic boom for 25 years after Reagan lowered taxes? Ditto when Gingrich lead the GOP Congress to cut taxes in 1997 and Bush43 did in 2003. And Democratic policies since FDR have put us in the financial mess we're in now, and they made it a lot worse under Obummer.

Welfare does not equate to wealth. There never was a Cadillac Mom. Welfare, when needed, is the moral and religious thing to do.

So let the churches handle it. We were doing okay before the gov't got involved, wweren't we? I say the moral thing to do is require people to be responsible for their own actions and take care of themselves. Asking somebody else to pay for your mistakes is immoral.

Trickle down economics does not work.

Worked pretty good for Reagan in 1980s and Bush43 in 2003.

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

Consider these points countered. Have a nice day.

 

[Oddball]

I have not read the latest posts; I will later. There are in America certain truths, I want to outline them as succinctly as possible to set out my position in this thread before replying again. If you think them untrue, support your position with references.

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

A society that is more equal functions better than one in which only a few possess wealth.

Statistics in a vacuum and bromides prove nothing.

No one on the left is claiming we should all be equal.

Obviously, since they're the ones who want to be the ones doing the expropriation and redistribution....Nothing equal about a ruling class lording over the proletariat.

Wealth can only be created in a society of citizens with a recognized and respected government.

Another irrelevant platitude.

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

Total lie...The goal of taxation is to provide public goods that are available to all (i.e.roads), not as a tool of the authoritarian social engineer.

The best periods in America history were when taxes were highest for the rich.

Irrelevant opinion.

Reducing taxes for the wealthy does not create jobs.

So what if it doesn't?...It's still their money in the first place.

The proof of any policy is in its accomplishments. The pudding still counts.

Republican policies of supporting the wealthy have failed for nearly 100 years.

We've been living under a Fabian socialist/progressive model for the last 100 years...If anything has failed, it's that tragically flawed bureaucratic debacle.

Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos.

Total unsubstantiated opinion.

Welfare does not equate to wealth. There never was a Cadillac Mom. Welfare, when needed, is the moral and religious thing to do.

Politicians, bureaucrats ans other well-heeled do-gooding hangers-on make absolute killings off of the socialistic welfare state....Welfare definitely equals wealth for them.

Also, gubmint isn't God....Time to ditch that tired old cynical claim of the supposed "morality" of stealing your neighbor's resources, as evidence of how charitable and benevolent you are.

Trickle down economics does not work.

Since drastic reductions in gubmint spending and bureaucracy are an integral part of the model of so-called "trickle down" economic model, it's safe to say that it's never even been tried. Ergo, your claim is specious on its face.

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

I just did, tovarich.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm looking for any good explanation for why Midcans, or anybody supporting his argument here, thinks he is entitled to anything I earn.

 

[Oddball]

Because the mythical "society" strawman has claim to the fruits of your efforts before you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because the mythical "society" strawman has claim to the fruits of your efforts before you do.

But why? On what basis? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Where in any of the Founding documents or histories is there any glimpse of such a thing?

At what point did American society morph from people having an unalienable right to the fruits of their own labor to a people entitled to the fruit of those who have the most?

 

[Oddball]

On the basis that we don't live in 18th century America anymore....As though that somehow changes the central mission of the feds, from protector of the citizenry against aggression, force and fraud to the primary practitioners of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have not read the latest posts; I will later. There are in America certain truths, I want to outline them as succinctly as possible to set out my position in this thread before replying again. If you think them untrue, support your position with references.

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

Define what you mean by inequality and I will find a statistic that proves your interpretation of inequality is not happening. There are always statistics that point to opposite truth, which is why intelligent people take them with a grain of salt.

A society that is more equal functions better than one in which only a few possess wealth.

Highly debatable opinion, and only a truth except in small minds that think their opinions mean more than the real world that surrounds them.

No one on the left is claiming we should all be equal.

Are you trying to tell me that advocates of social justice are right wingers now, or is this another attempt at Newspeak in order to say that people who clearly advocate something are actually saying something else to make it seem more palatable?

Wealth can only be created in a society of citizens with a recognized and respected government.

Wanna bet? I can point to at least one historical example a of culture that grew rich without having any recognized government. Not being an anthropologist I can not site more than that, but I am sure many exist.

As for the requirement that the government be respected, what about tyrannical governments that rule by fear? I can think of a few examples of those, and none of them ever had a problem creating wealth.

Then we have the example of black markets. Those operate outside the control of government, and only a complete idiot would try to argue that those do not create wealth.

You really have no idea at all what you are talking about. Do you even realize how ignorant about this you are? It takes an incredibly stupid man not to know what he does not know.

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

Taxes do not manage anything. People manage things, taxes are managed by said people. If you actually need a link to understand this I suggest you go back to school. You should start with pre-K because whatever education you have is obviously based on a false assumption that is so absurd I cannot even figure out what it is.

The best periods in America history were when taxes were highest for the rich.

Can you show some sort of correlation between high taxes and whatever you think makes those periods better than others?

Reducing taxes for the wealthy does not create jobs.

Of course it doesn't. Raising taxes does tend to be bad for jobs though. That is why people prefer lower taxes, because it gives them the best chance to get, and/or keep, a job.

The proof of any policy is in its accomplishments. The pudding still counts.

Yet you sit back and insist that your ideas are great despite all the historical evidence that they do not work. Why is that?

Republican policies of supporting the wealthy have failed for nearly 100 years.

The last hundred years have seen a lot of things, but I haven't seen anyone out to support the wealthy before TARP a few years ago. As I recall, it was the Republicans who caused that vote to fail the first time it came up.

What universe do you live in?

Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos.

And they were all wrong. Funny thing, when we had one party working against the other party we have economic prosperity, and when we have one part in control we have serious problems. Yet you, because you cannot see past the (D) after a persons name, blame everything on the people with an (R) after their name.

Then you accuse me of not being able to see the truth.

Welfare does not equate to wealth. There never was a Cadillac Mom. Welfare, when needed, is the moral and religious thing to do.

I thought you believed in the separation of church and state. I know I do, so why should the government be doing anything because it is the religious thing to do?

Trickle down economics does not work.

So you just want to take and spread it around faster? That did not work for Robin Hood, what makes you think it will work for the US government?

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

Every single one of us has, and you keep ignoring it.

 

[Foxfyre]

To Oddball: No argument from me about that. I still wonder when it happened though? What caused us to go from a visionary government of and by and for the people to an authoritarian government that robs Peter to pay Paul. And what happened to us to allow so many of our unalienable rights, choices, options, and opportunities to be taken away by the great god named 'equality'?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

We should take a hard look at the basic structures regarding corporate law and the inherent limited liability of that setup. If, for one, think there are serious issues with it. If we find problems with the system that make it unfair we should address them. But I don't think we should give in to unfairness and set government up as the decider for who wins and loses in a market setting. That's corporatism and it's incompatible with freedom and democracy.

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

Well said. We've fallen into the habit of abusing the power of taxation. Not only is it used for remedial wealth redistribution, but loopholes and incentives are implemented as defacto mandates that expand the power far beyond it's intent. Taxes are for financing government, not manipulating society.

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

If your conviction is that your points simply can't be countered, then I'm wondering why you've bothered to invite discussion. Why not just declare your arguments infallible and move on?

That is exactly what he does.

 

[Oddball]

To Oddball: No argument from me about that. I still wonder when it happened though? What caused us to go from a visionary government of and by and for the people to an authoritarian government that robs Peter to pay Paul.

Authoritarian elites who believed that merely getting elected automatically made them better and smarter than the people who elected them.

And what happened to us to allow so many of our unalienable rights, choices, options, and opportunities to be taken away by the great god named 'equality'?

Nothing happened to us.

"....all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Seems we're once again rapidly approaching the tipping point, where those evils are no longer sufferable.

 

[Foxfyre]

To Oddball: No argument from me about that. I still wonder when it happened though? What caused us to go from a visionary government of and by and for the people to an authoritarian government that robs Peter to pay Paul.

Authoritarian elites who believed that merely getting elected automatically made them better and smarter than the people who elected them.

Granted. But at some point enough people agreed with them to keep electing them and allowing them to take away our choices and options. To allow them to confiscate property we worked hard for and give it to people who had done nothing to deserve or merit it. Why are there so many people who think that is the way it should be and so few like me who think there is real danger for our nation and way of life in that?

And what happened to us to allow so many of our unalienable rights, choices, options, and opportunities to be taken away by the great god named 'equality'?

Nothing happened to us.

Something did. I can't imagine the WWII generation tolerating some of the nonsense that passes for 'equality' these days. A lot of those folks would have been up to Washington to drag the scoundrels out by their ears.

But now we do nothing but grumble and gripe and keep electing the same professional politicians into office who will keep right on screwing us.

"....all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Seems we're once again rapidly approaching the tipping point, where those evils are no longer sufferable.

We can only hope.

 

[dblack]

TNo conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

If your conviction is that your points simply can't be countered, then I'm wondering why you've bothered to invite discussion. Why not just declare your arguments infallible and move on?

That is exactly what he does.

That's certainly not what I'm saying. Midcan5 seems to be arguing in good faith. I'm just saying that just about any position can be countered credibly. I mean, that's sort of the point of debating on a message board, eh?

 

[editec]

No, they weren't tariffs.

Duties, imposts and excises on goods are specific one-time charges to pay for specific de jure government functions, not as trade barriers which are --strictly defined-- what tariffs are.

BTW, that system of duties, imposts and excises is still in place and functioning.

You have been misinformed or at least somehat confused..duties on IMPORTS are tariffs

The USA had a signifcant tariff system in place for nearly 150 years. THE FF understood that this nation needed to have industry if it was going to become a great nation

And that, incident is where the FEDs got most of the money it needed for the limited government we had at that time.

Obv

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a casual observation. Duties/tariffs or any other fees applied to commerce for purpose of raising monies to support the Constitutional functions of government is not redistribution of wealth of any sort.

 

[Oddball]

No, they weren't tariffs.

Duties, imposts and excises on goods are specific one-time charges to pay for specific de jure government functions, not as trade barriers which are --strictly defined-- what tariffs are.

BTW, that system of duties, imposts and excises is still in place and functioning.

You have been misinformed or at least somehat confused..duties on IMPORTS are tariffs

The USA had a signifcant tariff system in place for nearly 150 years. THE FF understood that this nation needed to have industry if it was going to become a great nation

And that, incident is where the FEDs got most of the money it needed for the limited government we had at that time.

Obv

No, I'm not misinformed.

The difference between duties and tariffs is intent.

One is to provide for the lawful operations of a de jure government, the other is a ploy (that never works) to attempt punishment of foreign competitors.

Words mean things, dude.

 

[midcan5]

If your conviction is that your points simply can't be countered, then I'm wondering why you've bothered to invite discussion. Why not just declare your arguments infallible and move on?

Sorta like the Pope, you must be Catholic, they taught you well. I love your replies. Ten years ago or so I came online after reading the horse pucky from the right about liberals and thought who could ever believe this stuff? But it is believed - proof abounds. A person, whose posts I respect once told me, he wrote for those who are still open to thought and change, for the quiet reader, and so I still write - time permitting. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise.

But in fairness I need to go back and read a bit to see if I missed a question or a profound idea that alters the state of the universe.

"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side." Joseph Addison

 

[midcan5]

You want to fix your perception that we are less free because some people are rich by making it impossible for anyone to get rich, and then wonder how anyone can think that makes us less free? Do you even see how absurd that position is, or are you absolutely incapable of seeing past the blather you have been spoon fed your entire life?

Stop relying on others to experience life and take a look around, the world is a wonderful place.

Rich people alone do not equate to a loss of freedom, it is rather societies in which equality is missing for the vast majority or even for a great number that lack freedom. If you have no opportunity you are not free. I do realize this is a balancing stick but again all statistics in America confirm my point. I will include another reference below, ignore it if you like. Online is the only place one is criticized for research. I have a wonderful life - I should be a conservative - but thanks for advice.

In our family we were lucky we had spoons. As far as experience, I'm sure if you can name just about anything that would constitute experience in your judgement - been there done that. But that is not relevant to the discussion. Ideas should stand or fall based on factual data.

"Winner-Take-All Politics is concerned first and foremost with economic inequality in America. The book cites a mountain of data to show how the very highest tiers in the nation’s income distribution—not just the top 10 percent, but the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent—have become much wealthier while income growth has stagnated at the middle and bottom. In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, “the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of income—a more than fourfold increase” (emphasis in original)." Boston Review — Archon Fung: Winning the Future (Winner-Take-All Politics)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If your conviction is that your points simply can't be countered, then I'm wondering why you've bothered to invite discussion. Why not just declare your arguments infallible and move on?

That is exactly what he does.

That's certainly not what I'm saying. Midcan5 seems to be arguing in good faith. I'm just saying that just about any position can be countered credibly. I mean, that's sort of the point of debating on a message board, eh?

I know it is not what you are saying, but it is what he does. He doesn't actually debate with anyone, he just uses quotes from people he thinks are smarter than he is. He then belittles anyone who disagrees with him, claims their sources are irrelevant, and declares himself the victor in the debate. He then moves on to another thought that he gets from some book he reads and repeats the process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rich people alone do not equate to a loss of freedom, it is rather societies in which equality is missing for the vast majority or even for a great number that lack freedom. If you have no opportunity you are not free. I do realize this is a balancing stick but again all statistics in America confirm my point. I will include another reference below, ignore it if you like. Online is the only place one is criticized for research. I have a wonderful life - I should be a conservative - but thanks for advice.

Everyone in this country has opportunity. That was demonstrated right after the civil war when former slaves were able to take nothing they started with and build fortunes. The only thing that kills opportunity is the idea that outcomes have to be equal for everyone. The only way for outcomes to be equal is if no one succeeds.

In our family we were lucky we had spoons. As far as experience, I'm sure if you can name just about anything that would constitute experience in your judgement - been there done that. But that is not relevant to the discussion. Ideas should stand or fall based on factual data.

You were there, you did things, and you learned nothing. That is not experience, that is existence.

"Winner-Take-All Politics is concerned first and foremost with economic inequality in America. The book cites a mountain of data to show how the very highest tiers in the nation’s income distribution—not just the top 10 percent, but the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent—have become much wealthier while income growth has stagnated at the middle and bottom. In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, “the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of income—a more than fourfold increase” (emphasis in original)." Boston Review — Archon Fung: Winning the Future (Winner-Take-All Politics)

Then you proceed to provide a quote that, again, proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why is it a bad thing that people are able to earn money? Are you aware that some of those top tier earners were born poor?

 

[dblack]

Sorta like the Pope, you must be Catholic, they taught you well.

Heh... not exactly.

I love your replies.

Thanks, I've enjoyed yours as well.

A person, whose posts I respect once told me, he wrote for those who are still open to thought and change, for the quiet reader, and so I still write - time permitting. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise.

Well said. I like that. But I do hope you'll try to keep an open mind and actually listen to other views. If nothing else, it helps to sharpen your arguments.

But in fairness I need to go back and read a bit to see if I missed a question or a profound idea that alters the state of the universe.

Awesome. Nothing I said will alter the state of the universe, but I'm particularly interested in your response to my points about the abuse of the taxation power, and perhaps the difference in implementation strategies implied by equality of opportunity as a goal vs. those implied by the goal of equalizing outcomes.