Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

[Bern80]

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?

Are you serious? You don't think there are government regulations that businesses need to meet in order to do business?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that Americans could become more productive than they already are? Why do you think that those receiving food stamps are not working as hard as they should?

Because I grew up in poor neighborhoods and had family members on welfare. I know what I speak of. No one was trying to find work. They were all more than happy to live off others. When they needed money for say a TV they either sold food stamps or did jobs under the table to get the money to buy them.

Fucking liar.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Are you serious? You don't think there are government regulations that businesses need to meet in order to do business?

I own a business. I am asking for the guy who made the statement to state which government regulations prevent people from opening businesses. You have not helped him.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Read it and weep.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/b...ice-cream-shop-can-open-citys-slow-churn.html

 

[rightwinger]

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 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.

Whining does not make you right

You have no concept of what a redistribution of wealth is. Just a hint....it has
little to do with providing welfare to the needy

Your perception of the applicability of our Constitution is nonsense. You are not taking from some and distributing to others. Congress has the authority to collect taxes and decide how those taxes will be collected. They also have the authority to obligate the utilization of those finds.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nice story. I'll bet you think that puts a cap on the discussion, don't you?

That ice cream shop is open and has 14 employees. I don't see how it was prevented from opening. You sure picked a strange example.

I like how you are pretending that we have been discussing local permit and use laws. You are just too smart for me.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

I love your post

It highlights the callous view that conservatives have towards the poor. They are not happy unless the poor suffer for their handouts. Having a place to call your own is too good for them.......Let em beg for a charity room
Being able to buy your food with dignity is too easy.......humiliate them and make them stand in a food line

The poor are meant to suffer.....that is why we need Conservatives to remind us what their proper place is

Hey, I'm poor, will you send me your paychecks and give me your house while you're at it?
I promise I will respect you for it.

 

[naturegirl]

Taking by force other people's money is stealing. Pretty simple concept.

Yup.

Charity is something that is FREELY given.

I give to charity but only those I decide to give to.

The Govt has decided that those that pay taxes need to support those that either:

A. Are to fucking irresponsible to take care of themselves.

B. Have learned to game the system and have a good thing going.

C. Are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves. Those folks no problem.

All able bodied free loaders need to assume responsibility for themselves and their kids. I, as a taxpayer, am sick and tired of being FORCED BY THE IDIOTS IN GOVT to support their deadbeat asses.

I stopped reading this thread here. You forgot to include that Government has decided that those that pay taxes need to support those that contribute to Obama's campaign. You know like Solyndra and Evergreen and Energy Conversion Devices Inc., Unions and bunches of others.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I love your post

It highlights the callous view that conservatives have towards the poor. They are not happy unless the poor suffer for their handouts. Having a place to call your own is too good for them.......Let em beg for a charity room
Being able to buy your food with dignity is too easy.......humiliate them and make them stand in a food line

The poor are meant to suffer.....that is why we need Conservatives to remind us what their proper place is

Hey, I'm poor, will you send me your paychecks and give me your house while you're at it?
I promise I will respect you for it.

I'm sorry Stephanie, but that is not how our society works

If you are struggling, we will help you. That is because we are a great nation and look out for our citizens.

 

[miami_thomas]

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

seeing the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes does not support your claim.

 

[miami_thomas]

Do you have any evidence that suggests that Americans could become more productive than they already are? Why do you think that those receiving food stamps are not working as hard as they should?

Because I grew up in poor neighborhoods and had family members on welfare. I know what I speak of. No one was trying to find work. They were all more than happy to live off others. When they needed money for say a TV they either sold food stamps or did jobs under the table to get the money to buy them.

Fucking liar.

Nice intelligent response. Sorry all true.

 

[miami_thomas]

Like what?

Are you serious? You don't think there are government regulations that businesses need to meet in order to do business?

I own a business. I am asking for the rguy who made the statement to state which government regulations prevent people from opening businesses. You have not helped him.

liar

 

[rightwinger]

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.


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

seeing the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes does not support your claim.

I'm afraid it supports exactly what I am saying

The reason they pay 70% of the taxes is that they make 70% of the income. That is because our nations wealth has been redistributed from the working class to your precious 10%

 

[Dragon129]

Well, I'm new to this board, but not new to political discussion and debate. This board is quite lively and, thought I did not read ALL the submissions...I think I have the gist of this thread. here's my take.

Redistribution of wealth is welfare. You can call it charity, you can call it anything you want, but it is welfare. The problem with redistribution of wealth is that it comes from EVERYWHERE, at every level. Its a bad idea.

Welfare should come from two places only...a federal welfare dept and a state welfare dept. And most welfare should come from the state. That way, it can be tracked, managed, and absue and waste can be mitigated.

Right now a mother of three can get welfare from the IRS in the form of earned income credit. Sher can get a , get this, refund that is as much as 10 times the amount of taxes she had withheld...maybe more. She can get assistance from the feds with housing. She can get foodstamps from one state office, tuition assistance from another, and child care from another.

None of these agencies watch each other and track how much help this ONE individual gets.

Oh, I know I said she...but consider it a unisex argument please.

I am aware of one such individual that received a total "redistribution" of more than 23K, just last year...and she added that to untaxed tip income that exceeded 1K a month.


Folks...people are truly entitled to a leg up. They are entitled to help they need to get going again, or for the first time...but our current system of redistributing the wealth is broken, pitifully lacking in simple technology and organization, and fraught with abuse.

There is no limit to money available in America....from hard work and determination, but there isn't enough money in the coffers of the rich to elevate the poor to iddle class...that has to be done with a growing economy from JOBS.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Charity...to a conservative...is donating some of your own money to those in need.

Charity...to a liberal...is giving someone else's money to those that want it...whether they need it or not.

I seem to recall it being shown many times that conservatives are a more charitable group than is the liberal crowd.

Charity to a liberal is taking someone else's money under the guise that the money will be given to those who want it; but, first, the money must go through layer(s) of distribution such as bureaucracy, bureacractic-funded fronts (ACORN), foundations, or unions......then, somehow, there's not enough money! Must be because those Goddamn fat cat republicans did not give enough in the first place.

 

[miami_thomas]

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

seeing the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes does not support your claim.

I'm afraid it supports exactly what I am saying

The reason they pay 70% of the taxes is that they make 70% of the income. That is because our nations wealth has been redistributed from the working class to your precious 10%

So you are saying the government took all the money the middle class had and gave it to the rich? can you please provide something that actually supports your claim?

 

[naturegirl]

Well, I'm new to this board, but not new to political discussion and debate. This board is quite lively and, thought I did not read ALL the submissions...I think I have the gist of this thread. here's my take.

Redistribution of wealth is welfare. You can call it charity, you can call it anything you want, but it is welfare. The problem with redistribution of wealth is that it comes from EVERYWHERE, at every level. Its a bad idea.

Welfare should come from two places only...a federal welfare dept and a state welfare dept. And most welfare should come from the state. That way, it can be tracked, managed, and absue and waste can be mitigated.

Right now a mother of three can get welfare from the IRS in the form of earned income credit. Sher can get a , get this, refund that is as much as 10 times the amount of taxes she had withheld...maybe more. She can get assistance from the feds with housing. She can get foodstamps from one state office, tuition assistance from another, and child care from another.

None of these agencies watch each other and track how much help this ONE individual gets.

Oh, I know I said she...but consider it a unisex argument please.

I am aware of one such individual that received a total "redistribution" of more than 23K, just last year...and she added that to untaxed tip income that exceeded 1K a month.


Folks...people are truly entitled to a leg up. They are entitled to help they need to get going again, or for the first time...but our current system of redistributing the wealth is broken, pitifully lacking in simple technology and organization, and fraught with abuse.

There is no limit to money available in America....from hard work and determination, but there isn't enough money in the coffers of the rich to elevate the poor to iddle class...that has to be done with a growing economy from JOBS.

 

[rightwinger]

seeing the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes does not support your claim.

I'm afraid it supports exactly what I am saying

The reason they pay 70% of the taxes is that they make 70% of the income. That is because our nations wealth has been redistributed from the working class to your precious 10%

So you are saying the government took all the money the middle class had and gave it to the rich? can you please provide something that actually supports your claim?

Well....let's see how money gets redistributed from the working class to the wealthy with the governments help

Decreased taxes on the wealthy causes cuts to programs that benefit the working class. Education, healthcare, mortgage support

Holding down the minimum wage helps reduce wages for all entry level jobs

Reducing worker protections impedes the ability to unionize and demand higher wages

Welfare, housing subsidies and food stamps help employers pay lower wages and make more profit at taxpayers expense

Add in business subsidies, capital gains exemptions, deferred taxes all which help the wealthy accumulate and preserve more wealth

 

[Richard-H]

The hell with wealth redistribution!

What we need is fair wealth distribution.

People should be paid on scale with the productive value of their work.

That would mean that the lion's share of the wealth would go to the working class, not the owners.

We can live without lawyers (quite happily), but we can't survive without ditch diggers.

 

[Bern80]

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 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.

Whining does not make you right

You have no concept of what a redistribution of wealth is. Just a hint....it has
little to do with providing welfare to the needy

Your perception of the applicability of our Constitution is nonsense. You are not taking from some and distributing to others. Congress has the authority to collect taxes and decide how those taxes will be collected. They also have the authority to obligate the utilization of those finds.

Do you notice you can't back up any of your bullshit?

My concept of redistribution is the one in the dictionary. What's yours?

And yes you are taking from some and giving to others. The money to give to people who don't have enough money has to be taken from people who do. Money is taken from one group and REDISTRIBUTED to another. Really hard concept for you to grasp clearly.

Yes congress has the authority to collect taxes but even a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause says those funds need to be spent for the general welfare. As in betterment of everyone, not just those that don't spend money.