Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[georgephillip]

Income taxes don't pay for any of that.

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

What about Raytheon and Halliburton?
The Pentagon?

 

[bripat9643]

Out of all the liberals in this thread, it looks like **0** want to talk about the actual topic. Nothing but subject changes, diversion, namecalling, and the usual leftist tactics. They are apparently afraid to touch the actual subject (wealth transfer is nothing but theft) with a ten-foot pole.

WHo can blame them? It implies that the entire reason for their (liberal) existence, is abusive and immoral. And NONE of them want to discuss it.

Back to the subject of the thread:
In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

One of the unstated premises of your argument is the government, farmer, and yourself exist as equals under the law. Without government there is no law; you have no money, and the farmer no land upon which to grow apples.

Once again, your theories about society and government are just plain wrong. Law predates government, and even when government existed, such at in the UK, the king did not make laws for the common people. They made their own law to settle disputes and punish wrong doers. Farming communities and towns existed for 7000 years prior to creation of the state. DO you imagine these communities had no means to settle disputes and punish wrong doers? Do you imagine they had no concept of private property?

If you look at the Iroquois Nation, you can't fail to notice that they practiced agriculture, lived in settled communities, settled their disputes and punished wrong doers. They had a system of laws and methods for settling disputes. All this occurred without government.

If you think ancient farmers practiced communal agriculture, you are mistaken. The empirical record shows that communal agriculture always leads to starvation. Agriculture can't exist without some notion of private property in terms of land.

You are skilled at asking questions.
Answer this one:

"At one of last year’s Republican presidential debates, a young man asked the moderator to pose the following question to the candidates: 'If I earn a dollar, how much of it am I entitled to keep?'”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/18/taxation-is-theft-so-why-do-americans-put-up-with-it/

He's entitled to keep 100% of it.

 

[JoeNormal]

If you look at the Iroquois Nation, you can't fail to notice that they practiced agriculture, lived in settled communities, settled their disputes and punished wrong doers. They had a system of laws and methods for settling disputes. All this occurred without government.

If you think ancient farmers practiced communal agriculture, you are mistaken. The empirical record shows that communal agriculture always leads to starvation. Agriculture can't exist without some notion of private property in terms of land.

Has it ever occurred to you that with a population density close to zero, the concept of private property is nebulous at best? So someone plants a crop and doesn't want another person to mess with it. He says, 'why don't you plant your crop over there.' It doesn't have to be on the same patch of land every year and there's no shortage of land on which to grow crops.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW....

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, how is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

 

[georgephillip]

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

From whom is the government buying bonds?

 

[itfitzme]

1.) I'm not a libertarian.

2.) Does anyone have any comments that are actually related to the subject of the thread (govt redistribution of wealth being theft, and examples showing theft and non-theft)?

"Income redistribution" is, exactly, theft. It is the direct violation of one of the most fundamental rights man has: The right to possess property he has justly acquired. Without that right, man is no more than an animal.

Someone who seeks to "redistribute" anyone's income other than his own, is merely a common thief.

And a government that seeks to do the same, is equally a thief. Multiplied by the number of people whose income it tries to "redistribute".

Yeah, except your missing that;

a) The economy itself is the process of re-distributing scarce resources. Raw materials are located one place. People get them and redistribute them to another place. People combine them into goods and redistribute those to other places. Money starts at one place, central banks. It is redistributed by people to other places, other banks, businesses, households, financial institutions, government agencies.

b) The money supply isn't an individually owned tool. It is a social tool, a public good. It has no primary use except in that it is passed from one person to another in exchange for another good or service. It has a secondary purpose of being a store of value but only for a limited amount of time. No matter how long it stores value, this secondary purpose is meaningless without it being an medium of exchange. It's primary function is in exchange and it losses value if it isn't used for it's primary function. To retain value for longer, it has to be invested, another exchange.

c) Those little boxes on your paycheck that read "State tax", "Federal Tax", "FICA" aren't an accouting of what you own. They are an accouting of the monies that belong to the state and federal government. It is disposable income that sets the level at which labor is provided, not the gross amount. When taxes are increased and decreased, the long run shift in the labor supply curve settles at the same position where disposable income is the same. How can it be any different? It is obvious that $100 with a ten percent tax has the exact same utility as $90 and no tax. Both purchase the same amount of goods.

The difference between the two has nothing to do with how much can be purchase but how much common gov't services are provided in support of other common goods that make the economy work.

I get it, it always feels like paying taxes is money I might have. In reality, it is obvious that this isn't the case. This isn't to say that when rates change, there isn't some effect on output. There is, in the short run.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need government and taxes. But it isn't a perfect world.

These are all pretty obvious and objective facts.

a) The economy is about redistributing scarce resources, including money.

b) The money supply is a social tool, a public good.

c) $100 with a ten percent tax is identical in utility as $90 and no tax.

d) The economy isn't perfect.

 

[itfitzme]

BTW....

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, how is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

The Constitution Of The United States Of America.

Theft: 1. the action or crime of stealing

Stealing: take without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

Legal right: a right based in law

Law: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere

"The law of the United States comprises many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States."

Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

 

[itfitzme]

How does government use taxpayer's money to support the rich?

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,

TreasuryDirect®

You can buy Treasury securities using one convenient web–based account which is part of an application we call TreasuryDirect. TreasuryDirect is our primary retail system for selling our securities. This system allows us to establish direct relationships with you as an investor, enabling you to do business with us electronically using the Internet and conduct transactions without personal assistance from us.

In TreasuryDirect, you can purchase and hold Treasury bills, notes, bonds and inflation-protected securities (TIPS) as well as savings bonds, and manage your holdings online in a secure environment.

So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW....

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, how is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

The Constitution Of The United States Of America.

Theft: 1. the action or crime of stealing

Stealing: take without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

Legal right: a right based in law

Law: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere

"The law of the United States comprises many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States."

Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

Thank you for a coherent response.

But you left out a major part of that quote.


In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."


It's difficult, and sometimes unwise, to take pieces out of context. And that's been done wrong, more times than can be counted, for this particular Clause. Here's an attempt to do it right:

"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."

People often leave out the collect-taxes part, and claim simply that "Congress can provide for the general Welfare". They then decide that "general Welfare" means anything that helps people, in any way. This is very convenient for those who want to expand government control, since the number of things that can help people, is almost unlimited.

They couldn't be more wrong, though.

It wouldn't have made much sense, for the original writers of the Constitution to take all the trouble of writing out certain powers of the government such as coining money, setting up Post Offices, punishing counterfeiters, offering patents for inventions, etc. Those things all help people, certainly.

If they were going to just make a general clause saying Government could do anything it wants, that helps people, those other powers are pretty redundant, aren't they? Why bother naming those particular powers, when you've already put a blanket permission for them plus lots of others, in place?

If the Welfare clause were a blanket permission, then 3/4 of the Constitution could be tossed out, because it would already be covered.

But, remember the collect-taxes part.

"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."

In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". And "general Welfare" had a specific definition in 1787-- it was written that way, to distinguish it from "Welfare of particular groups", which the Founders called "local Welfare".

So, "to provide for the general Welfare" is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups. Further, it implies but does not explicitly say, that if a spending program does not boost the welfare of the entire population, then it is forbidden. Unless, of course, the spending program comes under other permissions listed in the Constitution, such as National Defense, the Courts, Patent office, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Redistribution of wealth - where the state forces people to provide goods and services to others without compensaion.

This is involuntary servitude, specifically outlawed by the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

From whom is the government buying bonds?

The smart ass answer would be "bond holders." That would be American individuals and corporations who purchased government bonds.

 

[bripat9643]

75 billion a month in bonds.

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,

TreasuryDirect®

You can buy Treasury securities using one convenient web–based account which is part of an application we call TreasuryDirect. TreasuryDirect is our primary retail system for selling our securities. This system allows us to establish direct relationships with you as an investor, enabling you to do business with us electronically using the Internet and conduct transactions without personal assistance from us.

In TreasuryDirect, you can purchase and hold Treasury bills, notes, bonds and inflation-protected securities (TIPS) as well as savings bonds, and manage your holdings online in a secure environment.

So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

 

[georgephillip]

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,

TreasuryDirect®

You can buy Treasury securities using one convenient web–based account which is part of an application we call TreasuryDirect. TreasuryDirect is our primary retail system for selling our securities. This system allows us to establish direct relationships with you as an investor, enabling you to do business with us electronically using the Internet and conduct transactions without personal assistance from us.

In TreasuryDirect, you can purchase and hold Treasury bills, notes, bonds and inflation-protected securities (TIPS) as well as savings bonds, and manage your holdings online in a secure environment.

So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

Do you know who owns the FED?

 

[georgephillip]

Income taxes don't pay for any of that.

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[Derideo_Te]

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

When it comes to "useless ticks on the ass of society" the ignorami like bripat certainly fit that description.

 

[georgephillip]

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

When it comes to "useless ticks on the ass of society" the ignorami like bripat certainly fit that description.

I suspect bripat is at least as confused as I am about whether or not it's true that the federal government doesn't borrow in any meaningful sense since it is the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

 

[bripat9643]

If you look at the Iroquois Nation, you can't fail to notice that they practiced agriculture, lived in settled communities, settled their disputes and punished wrong doers. They had a system of laws and methods for settling disputes. All this occurred without government.

If you think ancient farmers practiced communal agriculture, you are mistaken. The empirical record shows that communal agriculture always leads to starvation. Agriculture can't exist without some notion of private property in terms of land.

Has it ever occurred to you that with a population density close to zero, the concept of private property is nebulous at best? So someone plants a crop and doesn't want another person to mess with it. He says, 'why don't you plant your crop over there.' It doesn't have to be on the same patch of land every year and there's no shortage of land on which to grow crops.

For most of history there was plenty of undeveloped land. Yet, people still felt the need to lay claim to specific tracts of land. One reason for that is that the areas near town are the most desirable since they are the easiest to get to. Furthermore, your belief that one tract of land is like any other doesn't hold water. Obviously, some areas have better soil, fewer rocks, better drainage, etc. Also, when a farmer works the land, he makes many improvements. He tills the soil and breaks it up. He clears the unwanted brush. He removes all the big rocks, and he often builds a fence around it to keep out animals. Do you actually believe anyone would do all that work to a plot of land and then allow someone else to squat on the results of all his hard work? Also, while there is a crop growing on it, the farmer is obviously going to want exclusive rights to it.

Your theory is obvious horseshit. Agriculture can't proceed without the institution of private property. That's how the concept came into being. It wasn't an invention of government.

 

[bripat9643]

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

When it comes to "useless ticks on the ass of society" the ignorami like bripat certainly fit that description.

I suspect bripat is at least as confused as I am about whether or not it's true that the federal government doesn't borrow in any meaningful sense since it is the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

 

[bripat9643]

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

When it comes to "useless ticks on the ass of society" the ignorami like bripat certainly fit that description.

Yeah, you're certainly a rocket scientist, aren't you? How do I fit the description?

 

[bripat9643]

What do the pay for?

"Last year, the three biggest federal budget items were Social Security, health care and defense spending — each of which ate up about $200 of your $1,000 weekly paycheck.

"Even though you may not have health insurance, about $219.40 of every $1,000 of your taxes went to pay for health care last year.

"On an annual salary of $52,000, that works out to $11,408.80 a year. The biggest chunk of that ($124.20 per thousand) went to pay for Medicare, which provides health coverage for people over 65.

"The rest ($95.20) went for Medicaid, which covers low-income families and individual, and state administered health coverage for children."

Big Pharma and Private Insurance Profits?

Where do my income tax dollars go? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News

The previous post referred to "all of the government services that protect you and provide you with the infrastructure to live and work." Those things are normally provided by state and local government, not the federal government. That later does very little to make this country function. It mostly just loots us for the benefit of useless ticks on the ass of society.

Of the 49,435,610 Americans currently receiving Medicare benefits, how many qualify as "useless ticks on the ass of society?"

Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

All of them. Are they producing anything? They're all sucking off younger people who work like borrowed mules to pay taxes so the greedy geezers can receive their benefits.