Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[kaz]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

That's the point. There is not enough of a percentage of Americans making enough money to actually "re-distribute" from. Therefore, THIS administration is doing it (or attempting to do it) by raping corporations through the corporate tax structure and what they are actually accomplishing is to run American business out of america.

American corporations are American people, remember? a 40% percent corporate tax rate is most definitely "re-distribution" of wealth.

 

[kaz]

American corporations are American people, remember? a 40% percent corporate tax rate is most definitely "re-distribution" of wealth.

I agree with you on that, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about government transferring wealth directly from one citizen to another. I edited my original post to make that clearer.

 

[RandallFlagg]

American corporations are American people, remember? a 40% percent corporate tax rate is most definitely "re-distribution" of wealth.

I agree with you on that, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about government transferring wealth directly from one citizen to another. I edited my original post to make that clearer.

OK....then it's not only illegal, but it's unconscionable. Probably why it's not YET being done to private individuals...

 

[kaz]

American corporations are American people, remember? a 40% percent corporate tax rate is most definitely "re-distribution" of wealth.

I agree with you on that, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about government transferring wealth directly from one citizen to another. I edited my original post to make that clearer.

OK....then it's not only illegal, but it's unconscionable. Probably why it's not YET being done to private individuals...

I think it is, our progressive tax rate does that. Then you get your deductions phased out on top of that. BTW, I started a thread on the business tax topic you raised, I was planning to do that anyway because of the Burger King situation you mentioned.

 

[regent]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

 

[haissem123]

I believe if it's ill gotten gains, as in the last wall street shuffle, by all means it not only legal it's the right thing to do. not too mention stop giving tax breaks that give nobody breaks but themselves ie big corporate america

 

[Seawytch]

Republican President Eisenhower made a good go of it...

 

[Little-Acorn]

The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare.

Nice try.

But the clause mentioning "General Welfare", did so to distinguish it from "local welfare", which was the other kind recognized in the late 1700s. It meant that govt could only spend money on programs that would help all Americans equally, not on programs that would help only some Americans (that was left to the states).

The Federal government taking money from some people and giving it directly to others (the topic of this thread) is flatly unconstitutional.

That doesn't stop the liberals from trying to do it anyway, of course. Their entire agenda is based on doing that, to buy votes they couldn't otherwise get.

 

[kaz]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

True, now what about answering the question I asked?

 

[kaz]

I believe if it's ill gotten gains, as in the last wall street shuffle, by all means it not only legal it's the right thing to do. not too mention stop giving tax breaks that give nobody breaks but themselves ie big corporate america

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

 

[kaz]

Republican President Eisenhower made a good go of it...

Is that supposed to answer the question? And what does a Republican have to do with a question by a libertarian? The world is simple to the simplistic...

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

 

[kaz]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

That's all you care about, it being redistributed to you. That isn't the question though, try answering it. I realize based on your history that won't happen...

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

That's all you care about, it being redistributed to you. That isn't the question though, try answering it. I realize based on your history that won't happen...

Far from it. In fact, my tax bracket would probably increase

But rather than resort to childlike personal attacks, why don't you admit the federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure?

 

[Seawytch]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

But of course our board libertarians won't complain about THAT

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

Show me specifically in the Constitution where national parks are authorized. Hint read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, it gives the purposes for which the feds should own land.