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

[NYcarbineer]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

If it's theft, then go to the police and file a complaint.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

I asked, "Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?" You didn't explain.

If I keep my money, nothing is being redistributed. How can you considered this 'redistribution'?

Your obligations as a citizen include an obligation to pay your taxes.

 

[Centinel]

Your obligations as a citizen include an obligation to pay your taxes.

Okay. And if the government lowers the amount of money one must pay, how is this a redistribution of wealth? One's wealth simply stays with the current owner. Where's the redistribution?

 

[depotoo]

Don't mind NYCarb. He gets confused easily...

Your obligations as a citizen include an obligation to pay your taxes.

Okay. And if the government lowers the amount of money one must pay, how is this a redistribution of wealth? One's wealth simply stays with the current owner. Where's the redistribution?

 

[Fishlore]

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

I asked, "Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?" You didn't explain.

If I keep my money, nothing is being redistributed. How can you considered this 'redistribution'?

Your "money" is a term that covers two different things. In everyday usage, "money" refers to currency, those patches of linen paper with pictures of dead presidents on them that you keep in your pocket. The term "currency" refers to that basic concept I wrote about, the economy as a circulation system. Current travels through an electric circuit, currency travels through a consumer economy.

Like an electrec current, paper currency has its power because it moves through the economy. If you take a thousand dollars in small bills and bury it in the back yard, it does nothing for you or for anyone else. (It does effect the M1 money supply, more on that later.)

The other sense in which we use the word "money" is as a synonym for "wealth" or "capital." This money is not in the form of currency, it represents, in actuality or potentia,l a resource which can be activated (usually by the application of labor) to produce something of value.

If you tell me which "money" you are talking about and link me to the statement that allowing you to keep that money is redistribution, I'll try and explain the connection between the two.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

Allowing large multinational corporations to pay their workers a less than living wage, and having US middle class taxpayers subsidize those wages with earned income credits, food stamps and Medicaid, is transferring the wealth of the middle class to Walmart, McDonalds and other low wage corporations.

Every American taxpayer contributes $2,500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in one of their stores. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in the US.

Understand how that wealth transfer happens now?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If it's theft, then go to the police and file a complaint.

The police (i.e. the government) are the ones committing the theft.

You were saying?

 

[Fishlore]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.
Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

To understand why this is so, it is necessary to examine closely the difference the Bush tax cuts made to a median income family making $44,000 a year and a 1% er family making $44,000,000 a year. Even if the cuts represented the same percentage of adjusted gross income (and they did not) the quantitative differences in the two amounts are the difference between currency and capital, as I explained earlier. In simple terms, the median income family gets some money with which to pay bills, perhaps even remodel the kitchen while the 1% gets enough money to purchase a small factory. As time passes, the median income family is no better off while the 1% family is richer than ever.

To understand the redistributive issue it is necessary ti understand the economic law of concentration of capital. As a result of a number of inherent forces, the growth rate of large capital holdings is entropically larger than that of small holdings. In an unrestrained capitalist system, fewer and fewer people hold more and more of the nation's total wealth. We have seen this happen before our eyes several times since the Civil War. Wealth redistributes itself unless government intervenes to keep the economy in balance and the society working satisfactorily. The Bush tax cuts were a major part of the Republican effort to destroy that anti-redistributive role of government and thus accelerated redistribution.

You can see why most college kids don't major in economics.

 

[Dragonlady]

Correction. This started with the Reagan Tax Cuts, not the Bush Cuts. The Bush Cuts continued and accelerated the process. It was noticed less with the Reagan Tax Cuts, because the Middle Class had more savings then, so it had a smaller impact on their lives since it meant cutting savings rather than spending. By the time Bush II came along, the Middle Class didn't have much in the way of savings, and their credit cards were pretty much maxxed out so the second round of cuts had a devastating impact on the Middle Class.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

You mean like, supply side economics, which bails out the wealthiest, and then trickles down?

 

[Londoner]

The distributive policies in the USA favor the corporate elites who fund elections. Washington is subsidy and bailout machine for big business.

The military is an oil-protection service, which basically protects Exxon investors through the military stabilization of the Middle East.

But it gets worse.

Global capitalism requires easy access to cheap resources and cheap labor markets in dangerous places. The American taxpayer pays for the military service that stabilizes the entire global profit system.

After you factor in strategic subsidies and tax breaks, the economic system is basically about the free transfer of ultra expensive services to the wealthy.

My brother in law is a lobbyist. His job is to get free stuff from government for the wealthy investors in his industry. He is part of why Washington DC is flanked by the 3 wealthiest zip codes in America - because big money flows into our political system to ensure that the economy is grossly slanted to the benefit of the top half.

The OP needs to turn of talk radio and study how policy actually works in the USA. While he's at it he should research the immensely expensive technological infrastructure - e.g., satellite system - that undergirds the profits of our largest MOST PROFITABLE industries. This infrastructure was supplied BY THE STATE SECTOR to wealthy profit makers.

Of course, those profit makers funnel a portion of those profits into the Rightwing press so that the OP keeps repeating the same clueless garbage we've heard since 1980.

 

[Dragonlady]

The original post grossly misrepresented how government transfer of wealth really works. It's not government taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor, it's government taking money from the middle class to subsidize the profits of the very wealthy.

By artificially keeping the minimum wage lower than the amount required to provide the necessities of life for their workers and supplementing wages of the working poor with earned income credits, Medicaid and food stamps, while recording record profits middle class families are allowing corporations to give more of their income to shareholders.

I personally think that minimum wage companies need to pay their own damn employees and leave the taxpayers out of it. That would not only cut government spending on social programs, but decrease the size of government as fewer program administration staff would be required.

It is so much cheaper to have companies pay their own workers and better for the economy as well.

 

[Centinel]

If you tell me which "money" you are talking about and link me to the statement that allowing you to keep that money is redistribution, I'll try and explain the connection between the two.

I was referring to this statement:

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

And I was referring to the money people use to pay their taxes.

Allowing people to continue to own their own money is not redistribution.

 

[Londoner]

If you tell me which "money" you are talking about and link me to the statement that allowing you to keep that money is redistribution, I'll try and explain the connection between the two.

I was referring to this statement:

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

And I was referring to the money people use to pay their taxes.

Allowing people to continue to own their own money is not redistribution.

It's not your money until you pay for the subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure and military services you get from the state.

There are too many well connected corporations who own politicians and maintain fraudulent offshore addresses. These parasites don't pay for the immense services they receive from government.

These freeloading corporations are the same special interest that own the Rightwing press, who have conditioned the OP to understand welfare only as having to do with the poor.

The OP's news & information sources have never explained who really benefits from the political and economic institutions of this nation.

Big business owns our political system and our economy. This is why the big banks were bailed out in 2008 but the middle class was foreclosed upon. (Money always travels upward; the wealthy are always protected when it is possible to protect them)

The OP is peddling the same old garbage we've heard forever. He wants us to think the homeless family living under a bridge is living large, but the Koch brothers are victims.

The American Distribution system is set-up to transfer wealth upward. Corporations don't spend billions of dollars a year lobbying politicians for nothing. They pay handsomely for a rigged system which benefits those wealthy enough to buy Washington.

(The OP needs to turn off talk radio and go to college.)

 

[Centinel]

It's not your money until you pay for the subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure and military services you get from the state.

Are you saying that the money a person has in her bank account is not hers? That the money a person has in her wallet is not hers?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not your money until you pay for the subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure and military services you get from the state.

Are you saying that the money a person has in her bank account is not hers? That the money a person has in her wallet is not hers?

She's saying that your net income is a gift from the government. That all money you earn belongs to the government until after it decides how much you are allowed to keep. That's the kind of utterly servile idiocy that socialists believe in.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's not what she's saying at all. She's saying that taxes are your share of the costs of living in a First World nation.

 

[bripat9643]

That's not what she's saying at all. She's saying that taxes are your share of the costs of living in a First World nation.

No, that's not what she's saying. She believes your net income is a gift from the government. You are entitled only to what the government allows you to keep. In her eyes, it's not your money.

 

[Fishlore]

It's not your money until you pay for the subsidies, bailouts, infrastructure and military services you get from the state.

Are you saying that the money a person has in her bank account is not hers? That the money a person has in her wallet is not hers?

She's saying that your net income is a gift from the government. That all money you earn belongs to the government until after it decides how much you are allowed to keep. That's the kind of utterly servile idiocy that socialists believe in.

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

 

[Centinel]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?