Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

[miami_thomas]

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Can you please provide some examples of the middle class supporting the rich? Considering that the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes I don't think your argument has much merit. Without the rich this country would be in a world of hurt.

Well, it all comes down to the Golden Rule...

He who has the gold, makes the rules

So when 95% of our tax code is written by the wealthy, for the wealthy, you get situations like with Mr Romney where most of his wealth is hidden and he pays a smaller effective tax rate than working Americans

The result has been a redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the wealthiest Americans

Yes but the rich are not the only ones that get dividends. Middle class people do as well. Now if Romney worked and may a salary in the amount that he gets from dividends then he would pay more in taxes. The way to fix that is with the fair tax that way everyone pays the same rate. The rich will pay more in that system as well because the rich buy more things.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, just for the record......you think that liberals are more charitable because they want to tax people and have the government redistribute that money to people who have less? Is that what you consider charity? Because you seem to believe that conservatives who choose to give freely of their bounty to people in need hate the poor and are not charitable. Do I understand your warped view of the definition of charity?

No you don't

Both public assistance and private charity must coexist. It is not either or. There are many things the government is able to do that private charity cannot. Private charity must spend a major portion of it's funds just on the act of raising funds. Private charity is also more susceptible to economic swings and donations go down at the same time need goes up.

In spite of rightwing propaganda, government social programs also provide a way out of poverty with educational, job training and jobs placement programs that are unmatched by private charity

Nope a lot of people stop giving to charity because they expect the government to take care of the poor. And they do but do it in the lazy expensive way. Right wing propaganda is funny it really is. Sure there is some good out of it but the problem is there is a lot of bad to come out of it as well. I’m not saying government can not continue some things but it has to be in a way that does not make is so that someone can live happily off someone else for the rest or their lives. There has to be motivation for some to get out there and do something, anything.

Well apparently I won't get my question answered as to the distinction between charity and redistribution of wealth when my $10 is used to buy (the generic) you food when you are hungry to to subsidize your housing when you can't afford your rent.

But you take it to the next dynamic here. The leftwinger/liberal/leftist considers it benevolence when the the government takes my $10 and uses it for (the generic) your benefit.

The modern day conservatives among us consider the same thing theft.

Liberals confiscate your money presumably for the benefit of others and feel righteous.

Conservatives only feel that that have given charitably when they do so voluntarily.

There is a huge difference between these two things.

 

[miami_thomas]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

Okay, so I give you $10 to buy food, that is charity? I will agree with that.

How about I take $10 away from Harry and give it to you for food. Is that charity?

But if I subsidize your housing with $10 so that you won't have to pay so much for rent, that is not charity? It is now redistribution o wealth?

Or more accurately, I take $10 of Harry's money and use it to subsidize your housing so that you don't have to pay so much for rent and that is not charity? It is redistribution of wealth?

Perhaps you could make the distinction of the difference to me (or Harry) whether you call it charity or redistribution of wealth.

Charity is when money is given only to provide the minimum that is needed to help someone survive until they can start taking care of themselves again. Re-distribution of wealth is when money is given to better someone’s life style.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.

Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.

Good quote and dissertation. You are also correct.

Robert

 

[rightwinger]

No.... your premise is wrong.. your wealth belongs to you.. you know... private property rights (things you socialists hate).... You do not get to rob Peter to pay Paul by your mighty governmental hand for your own touchy feelings

fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

No, you are wrong

You belong to a society. You are expected to contribute to society and the society as a whole, decides how best to use those contributions

Every American does better as a part of a society than they would do as an individual

 

[miami_thomas]

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Bullshit. Please explain SPECIFICALLY how money was FORCED out of the hands of the poor and given to the wealthy. While that may be money changing hands through economic activity, that is not the forced wealth redistribution that government partakes in. I'm pretty sure you know that, but than again intellectual honesty we know is a bit much to ask of the likes of righty.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

And that would be the Left that is doing that. The labor and environmental rules are exactly the things that are being talked about when the conservatives say regulations are killing small business.

 

[miami_thomas]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

At a tax rate of 70 to 90 percent no one would work and the rich would leave. Great idea - NOT. It is not the nation’s money it is the individual’s money. When it becomes the nation’s money then the poor are really in trouble because then it would be communism and the poor in communism is not where you would want to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

And as a follow up to my previous post. . . .

I think a large number of the modern American liberals give modestly, marginally, or not at all to charity as they look to the government to take care of that for them.

Modern American conservatives are far more likely to give of their own resources, time, talent, and money for the benefit of others. They know that they do the greatest good that way than will be done throught he government that siphones off most of the money to finance a bloated bureauvcracy.

I think too that Conservatives would also give a whole lot more if the government shut off the spigot. Before the government got involved, in the past when hurricanes, tornados, wild fires, and earthquakes hit, the American people rallied to send food, clothing, blankets, medical supplies and gave of themselves to help folks dig out and rebuild. Onvce the government started taking over that function, less effivciently and less effectively but at four times the cost of course, people are somewhat less likely to rally to help out. Our own modest contribution of a case of canned goods or blankets looks silly in face of the millions the government pledges for relief. Nor does the government ask for or want our help and it usually works poorly with or only tolerates private relief organizations.

 

[asaratis]

We already have a redistribution of wealth. It has been going on for thirty years and has redistributed wealth from the middle class to the wealthy

Was that charity?

Bullshit. Please explain SPECIFICALLY how money was FORCED out of the hands of the poor and given to the wealthy. While that may be money changing hands through economic activity, that is not the forced wealth redistribution that government partakes in. I'm pretty sure you know that, but than again intellectual honesty we know is a bit much to ask of the likes of righty.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

Wrong. By its very definition "redistribution of wealth" means to TAKE the wealth of many (the wealthy) and REDISTRIBUTE it among many more (the not-wealthy). It is evidenced as being on the agenda of the Marxist asshole Obama in his absolutely STUPID statement that "there comes a time when you've made enough money." What a fucking communist thing to say. "To each according to his need... you don't need that money because you already have enough...I'm going to give some of yours to these poor voting people who have only a tenth of what you do...It is not FAIR for you to have so much more than the rest of the people."

Screw communism and screw the goddamned Marxist asshole Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

The link above just takes me to another of your idiotic posts.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. Please explain SPECIFICALLY how money was FORCED out of the hands of the poor and given to the wealthy. While that may be money changing hands through economic activity, that is not the forced wealth redistribution that government partakes in. I'm pretty sure you know that, but than again intellectual honesty we know is a bit much to ask of the likes of righty.

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

Wrong. By its very definition "redistribution of wealth" means to TAKE the wealth of many (the wealthy) and REDISTRIBUTE it among many more (the not-wealthy). It is evidenced as being on the agenda of the Marxist asshole Obama in his absolutely STUPID statement that "there comes a time when you've made enough money." What a fucking communist thing to say. "To each according to his need... you don't need that money because you already have enough...I'm going to give some of yours to these poor voting people who have only a tenth of what you do...It is not FAIR for you to have so much more than the rest of the people."

Screw communism and screw the goddamned Marxist asshole Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

The link above just takes me to another of your idiotic posts.

Show me anything that supports your bizarre definition of redistribution of wealth. That redistribution can go both ways. Right now it is going from the middle class to the wealthy

The wealthy are accumulating more money not less

 

[Bern80]

No.... your premise is wrong.. your wealth belongs to you.. you know... private property rights (things you socialists hate).... You do not get to rob Peter to pay Paul by your mighty governmental hand for your own touchy feelings

fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

No, you are wrong

You belong to a society. You are expected to contribute to society and the society as a whole, decides how best to use those contributions

Every American does better as a part of a society than they would do as an individual

You can tell people they're wrong all you want. it doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't make you right. America was country founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty. While it is true that we are all dependent on one another to some extent that does not entitle you to the property of another. Yes you are expected to contribute to society which is why I have such a hard time giving money to those who don't. Contributing to society means NOT undually burdening your fellow citizens. It means working to accomplish that which you are capable of accomplishing on your own and not obligating others to do for you that which are able to do for yourself.

 

[Bern80]

And as a follow up to my previous post. . . .

I think a large number of the modern American liberals give modestly, marginally, or not at all to charity as they look to the government to take care of that for them.

Modern American conservatives are far more likely to give of their own resources, time, talent, and money for the benefit of others. They know that they do the greatest good that way than will be done throught he government that siphones off most of the money to finance a bloated bureauvcracy.

I think too that Conservatives would also give a whole lot more if the government shut off the spigot. Before the government got involved, in the past when hurricanes, tornados, wild fires, and earthquakes hit, the American people rallied to send food, clothing, blankets, medical supplies and gave of themselves to help folks dig out and rebuild. Onvce the government started taking over that function, less effivciently and less effectively but at four times the cost of course, people are somewhat less likely to rally to help out. Our own modest contribution of a case of canned goods or blankets looks silly in face of the millions the government pledges for relief. Nor does the government ask for or want our help and it usually works poorly with or only tolerates private relief organizations.

You don't have think it at all. It's a fact. Conservatives are more generous with their own money than liberals. Liberals feign generosity and compassion by lobbying government to take money from others to give to their causes rather than doing so themselves. Which yet more evidence that once again liberals hate personal responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

No.... your premise is wrong.. your wealth belongs to you.. you know... private property rights (things you socialists hate).... You do not get to rob Peter to pay Paul by your mighty governmental hand for your own touchy feelings

fuck off Midcan with your hippie commune bullshit

No, you are wrong

You belong to a society. You are expected to contribute to society and the society as a whole, decides how best to use those contributions

Every American does better as a part of a society than they would do as an individual

You can tell people they're wrong all you want. it doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't make you right. America was country founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty. While it is true that we are all dependent on one another to some extent that does not entitle you to the property of another. Yes you are expected to contribute to society which is why I have such a hard time giving money to those who don't. Contributing to society means NOT undually burdening your fellow citizens. It means working to accomplish that which you are capable of accomplishing on your own and not obligating others to do for you that which are able to do for yourself.

Nobody is seizing your property. You are a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the world. That country is ruled by a constitution and that constitution gives your elected officials the authority to collect taxes to do what is best for the general welfare of we the people

 

[Bern80]

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

Wrong. By its very definition "redistribution of wealth" means to TAKE the wealth of many (the wealthy) and REDISTRIBUTE it among many more (the not-wealthy). It is evidenced as being on the agenda of the Marxist asshole Obama in his absolutely STUPID statement that "there comes a time when you've made enough money." What a fucking communist thing to say. "To each according to his need... you don't need that money because you already have enough...I'm going to give some of yours to these poor voting people who have only a tenth of what you do...It is not FAIR for you to have so much more than the rest of the people."

Screw communism and screw the goddamned Marxist asshole Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

The link above just takes me to another of your idiotic posts.

Show me anything that supports your bizarre definition of redistribution of wealth. That redistribution can go both ways. Right now it is going from the middle class to the wealthy

The wealthy are accumulating more money not less

Bizarre defintion? That's what's in the dictionary you idiot.

transitive verb
1: to alter the distribution of : reallocate
2: to spread to other areas
— re·dis·tri·bu·tion \(&#716rē-ˌdis-trə-ˈbyü-shən\ noun
— re·dis·tri·bu·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective

Accumulation is not redistibution. Their greater accumulation is not the result of taking from middle class and poor. I ask a third time. How SPECIFICALLY is money beig forceably taken from the middle class and poor and being given to the wealthy.

 

[sassmcghee]

I am ultra rich (pretend with me) and I spend tens of millions of dollars getting the right person elected to office. When I get them elected, I call in my cards and let them know just what legislation I would like to see passed that would benefit both me, my friends and the Senator or Congressman that I just helped get elected. Now with the help of my Congresperson I can get legislation passed so I can legally avoid paying my taxes or obtain tax treatment that is unavailable to people with far less money.

That sceniaro happens every day in Congress, very rich people using their wealth to obtain decisions favorable to a small few of very rich people.

Tell me again how that is "fair" to the rest of us.

Seems to me the REAL problem stems from the corrupt politicians allowing this to happen, passing laws that make it possible and encouraging it to happen. Why do they allow this? Because the politicians are NOT working for "the people" they are working for themselves and their own careers. They don't give a rat's ass about the people.

And why is there even an Occupy Wall Street going on, they aren't the ROOT of the problem? It should be Occupy Government Corruption. But since a Democrat is in office right now no way that would happen, so the brain trusts go after Wall Street instead.

 

[Bern80]

No, you are wrong

You belong to a society. You are expected to contribute to society and the society as a whole, decides how best to use those contributions

Every American does better as a part of a society than they would do as an individual

You can tell people they're wrong all you want. it doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't make you right. America was country founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty. While it is true that we are all dependent on one another to some extent that does not entitle you to the property of another. Yes you are expected to contribute to society which is why I have such a hard time giving money to those who don't. Contributing to society means NOT undually burdening your fellow citizens. It means working to accomplish that which you are capable of accomplishing on your own and not obligating others to do for you that which are able to do for yourself.

Nobody is seizing your property. You are a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the world. That country is ruled by a constitution and that constitution gives your elected officials the authority to collect taxes to do what is best for the general welfare of we the people

Read the constitution again. No it doesn't. In fact it is exactly the opposite. The federal government is NOT allowed, according to the constitution, to take money from one group and give it to another. They also do not have the authority to spend said collected taxes on whatever they feel like is in the countries best interest.

 

[rightwinger]

You can tell people they're wrong all you want. it doesn't make it so and it certainly doesn't make you right. America was country founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty. While it is true that we are all dependent on one another to some extent that does not entitle you to the property of another. Yes you are expected to contribute to society which is why I have such a hard time giving money to those who don't. Contributing to society means NOT undually burdening your fellow citizens. It means working to accomplish that which you are capable of accomplishing on your own and not obligating others to do for you that which are able to do for yourself.

Nobody is seizing your property. You are a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the world. That country is ruled by a constitution and that constitution gives your elected officials the authority to collect taxes to do what is best for the general welfare of we the people

Read the constitution again. No it doesn't. In fact it says exactly the opposite. The federal government is NOT allowed, according to the constitution, to take money from one group and give it to another. They also do not have the authority to spend said collected taxes on whatever they feel like is in the countries best interest.

LOL....I'm afraid they do regardless of what libertarian nonsense you subscribe to

 

[LoneLaugher]

grunt, how many people on this message board you think are receiving welfare as given to poorer people?

What are the regs that are keeping companies from hiring? When I talk to people that run small business's, they say the only thing keeping them from hiring is lack of business. But then I live in Ohio.
I guess around the rest of the country, demand is termendous but no one is hiring because of those regs. What regs?

And what is the correct tax rate for people in your opinion? Is it 0, 2% 5% how much?

There are many regulations that keep people from openning their own businesses. If we had the regulations when we first began as a country, we would have never made it to where we are today. That is a fact.

I vote for the fair tax. That way everyone pays the same tax even those that hide income. It would eliminate the need for all the paper word currently needed. No longer need tax attorneys. I say a sales tax on all things with the exception of non prepared food items.

Like what?

 

[Bern80]

Nobody is seizing your property. You are a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the world. That country is ruled by a constitution and that constitution gives your elected officials the authority to collect taxes to do what is best for the general welfare of we the people

Read the constitution again. No it doesn't. In fact it says exactly the opposite. The federal government is NOT allowed, according to the constitution, to take money from one group and give it to another. They also do not have the authority to spend said collected taxes on whatever they feel like is in the countries best interest.

LOL....I'm afraid they do regardless of what libertarian nonsense you subscribe to

When are going to learn that simply insisting something does not make it so. And you're a weasel on top of that. You change the subject so you don't have to admit to being wrong. You were called out on the so called bazarr definition fo redstribution even though your so called bazarr definition is the one that's in the dictionary and you continue to avoid citing any specific way the rich are foreceably taking money from the poor.

When you get done mustering the integrity to admit you're wrong about that you can move on to citing the section of the constitution that allows government to to take from some and give to others for whatever they feel like.

 

[kwc57]

You have no concept of what redistribution of wealth is. It is not the Robin Hood scenario espoused by Conservatives. It is a gradual revision of the rules that make it harder for working Americans to accumulate and maintain wealth while making it easier to protect the investments of the wealthy from taxes, competition, labor and environmental rules

Wrong. By its very definition "redistribution of wealth" means to TAKE the wealth of many (the wealthy) and REDISTRIBUTE it among many more (the not-wealthy). It is evidenced as being on the agenda of the Marxist asshole Obama in his absolutely STUPID statement that "there comes a time when you've made enough money." What a fucking communist thing to say. "To each according to his need... you don't need that money because you already have enough...I'm going to give some of yours to these poor voting people who have only a tenth of what you do...It is not FAIR for you to have so much more than the rest of the people."

Screw communism and screw the goddamned Marxist asshole Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208125-another-question-for-republicans-8.html#post4816166

The phrase 'redistribution of wealth' is just a way the corporations and big money keep the puppets of the right dancing their puppet jig. If the wealth of a nation belongs to the nation, it belongs to the citizens of the nation. The only way wealth is created is in a nation, in a society, so it follows from both a secular and a religious position that the spoils belong to all. If some have more it is not because they are more than one citizen, and it is not because they have created something from nothing. Only one person is presumed to have done that. It always amazes me how the right wing dances to the money man or woman.

See link above it covers the topic.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

The link above just takes me to another of your idiotic posts.

Show me anything that supports your bizarre definition of redistribution of wealth. That redistribution can go both ways. Right now it is going from the middle class to the wealthy

The wealthy are accumulating more money not less

You've yet to prove your claim that wealth is being redistributed from the middle class/poor to the rich. Time to put up or shut up.