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

[Indeependent]

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

1. Of course, you have to demonstrate, and that is understood as a GIVEN in a hypothetical case. Get it ?

2. No you may NOT easily get a job anywhere. The economy is bad. White males face constant affirmative action discrimination, and in a bad job market, often, you have to know somebody to get a job. Also, many employers hire foreign immigrants to have cheap labor. You could also be discriminated against because of a low credit score, or any number of other very dumb reasons.

Your theory has a hole in it the size of Texas.

More like India or China.

 

[protectionist]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

It's safe to assume that the majority of workers are paid what they're worth.

Yeah ? Upon WHAT do you base that statement ? I would guess it to be just the opposite.

 

[bripat9643]

What one is worth and what the market is willing to pay are two different things.

No they aren't. What the market is willing to pay is the only objective definition of the term "worth."

 

[bripat9643]

It's safe to assume that the majority of workers are paid what they're worth.

Yeah ? Upon WHAT do you base that statement ? I would guess it to be just the opposite.

He bases it on the laws of economics.

 

[bripat9643]

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

1. Of course, you have to demonstrate, and that is understood as a GIVEN in a hypothetical case. Get it ?

If it's "hypothetical," then you can't claim it has any basis in reality. Let's assume hypothetically that you are getting paid what you're worth. According to your logic, that means income redistribution is theft.

[2. No you may NOT easily get a job anywhere. The economy is bad. White males face constant affirmative action discrimination, and in a bad job market, often, you have to know somebody to get a job. Also, many employers hire foreign immigrants to have cheap labor. You could also be discriminated against because of a low credit score, or any number of other very dumb reasons.?

For whatever reasons your pay is where it's at, that's what you're worth.

Apparently you endorse the Marxian theory of value that says labor has some intrinsic value that isn't determined by the laws of supply and demand. That theory has been demonstrated repeatedly to be pure hooey.

 

[Indeependent]

What one is worth and what the market is willing to pay are two different things.

No they aren't. What the market is willing to pay is the only objective definition of the term "worth."

So if we sent every business visa home and removed the right of MNCs to off-shore White Collar work, you think that would affect what the market would pay?
Or would every MNC CEO sh!t in his/her underwear?

 

[Darkwind]

Little Acorn,

The largest recipient of Government funds are corporations, who have built lobbying empires to extract money from the largest wallet on earth, the US Taxpayer.

If you want to have credibility, you have to cover all government handouts - but you never do.

The Reagan revolution started with a promise for small government, and it ended when George Bush bailed drafted TARP and spied on American citizens.

And yes, we know the Dems like to spend and grow government, but your party is just as bad or worse (in fact Reagan spent more and expanded the federal workforce more than Carter or Clinton, and your side said nothing). George Bush and the GOP Congress voted to increased the Debt Ceiling 5 times, and your side said nothing. Guys like you didn't even know it happened.

The American Government hands out trillions of dollars of subsidies to the private sector. The taxpayer protects Exxon's oil fields in the middle east through the Pentagon budget. The private sector has drawn massive profits from the satellite system funded and installed by government, mostly through defense related industries. The handouts to private corporations are massive. Until you can provide a more thorough analysis of all government handouts, you lack credibility.

Do you want to provide proof of that? And DO NOT post nonsense about tax code loopholes. That is NOT government giving corporations money.

 

[Indeependent]

Little Acorn,

The largest recipient of Government funds are corporations, who have built lobbying empires to extract money from the largest wallet on earth, the US Taxpayer.

If you want to have credibility, you have to cover all government handouts - but you never do.

The Reagan revolution started with a promise for small government, and it ended when George Bush bailed drafted TARP and spied on American citizens.

And yes, we know the Dems like to spend and grow government, but your party is just as bad or worse (in fact Reagan spent more and expanded the federal workforce more than Carter or Clinton, and your side said nothing). George Bush and the GOP Congress voted to increased the Debt Ceiling 5 times, and your side said nothing. Guys like you didn't even know it happened.

The American Government hands out trillions of dollars of subsidies to the private sector. The taxpayer protects Exxon's oil fields in the middle east through the Pentagon budget. The private sector has drawn massive profits from the satellite system funded and installed by government, mostly through defense related industries. The handouts to private corporations are massive. Until you can provide a more thorough analysis of all government handouts, you lack credibility.

Do you want to provide proof of that? And DO NOT post nonsense about tax code loopholes. That is NOT government giving corporations money.

Really? So writing off moving to another country is not a government handout?

 

[National Socialist]

You are a pathetic brainwashed moron.

Not hardly. You would be brainwashed if you don't think workers have a right to the profits they helped make by selling the items for the big bosses...50/50.

They have no rights to the profits. They only have rights to what they agreed to in their employment contract.

Hell of an agreement,take this low paying minimum wage job so it fits the criteria for welfare that you are looking for work or just don't get anything! You get nothing I get everything! OH yeah awesome capitalism is just great.

You are a pathetic brainwashed moron.

Not hardly. You would be brainwashed if you don't think workers have a right to the profits they helped make by selling the items for the big bosses...50/50.

Not their money NOR is it yours.

Yes it is theirs. They sold the stuff whether it be food or a baseball glove or shoes whatever it is. Boss sits on his ass doing nothing but collecting money off of others hard work.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Boss sits on his ass doing nothing but collecting money off of others hard work.

This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.

The socialists and other liberals in this thread, are finding an amazing number of ways to change the subject and not talk about the actual topic of the thread.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?

 

[Indeependent]

Boss sits on his ass doing nothing but collecting money off of others hard work.

This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

It depends on what type of boss.
Most finance firm Presidents do little more than attend meetings and write an occasional memo.
They also wind up taking full credit for any project that gets done by others.
A boss in a Pizza Shop works pretty hard.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Boss sits on his ass doing nothing but collecting money off of others hard work.

This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

It depends on what type of boss.
Most finance firm Presidents do little more than attend meetings and write an occasional memo.
They also wind up taking full credit for any project that gets done by others.
A boss in a Pizza Shop works pretty hard.

The socialists and other liberals in this thread, are finding an amazing number of ways to change the subject and not talk about the actual topic of the thread.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?

 

[Indeependent]

This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

It depends on what type of boss.
Most finance firm Presidents do little more than attend meetings and write an occasional memo.
They also wind up taking full credit for any project that gets done by others.
A boss in a Pizza Shop works pretty hard.

The socialists and other liberals in this thread, are finding an amazing number of ways to change the subject and not talk about the actual topic of the thread.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?

So you don't take the industry into account when discussing the efforts of various levels of work?

 

[WelfareQueen]

I'll throw this in to really piss-off the conservatives.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post

I keep seeing this as the great new Liberal talking point. Redistribution of wealth means you actively take wealth from one party and give to another. Since the top 10% of earners in the U.S. pay 70% of all income tax, the argument is false as it relates to idea of the the Government actively redistributing middle class wealth to the upper class.


Now if your argument is that there are many Government policies that favor the wealthy you would probably get much broader agreement, including from me.

 

[Indeependent]

I'll throw this in to really piss-off the conservatives.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post

I keep seeing this as the great new Liberal talking point. Redistribution of wealth means you actively take wealth from one party and give to another. Since the top 10% of earners in the U.S. pay 70% of all income tax, the argument is false as it relates to idea of the the Government actively redistributing middle class wealth to the upper class.


Now if your argument is that there are many Government policies that favor the wealthy you would probably get much broader agreement, including from me.

Neither extreme is good.

 

[WelfareQueen]

That's funny, you make the same exact arguments as the Von Mises crowd.

So what exactly is government redistributing? Is it apples? I hate to repeat myself but you've gone to the Arthur Murray school of debating. Tap dancing around the subject matter.

The farmers deed to his property has value b/c the US government makes it so. No deed. No ownership.

I have yet to see you counter this simple observation: But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

It's obvious to any numskull that government redistributes income. It takes from some so it can give to others. Only the ignorant believe private property didn't exist before government. The Iroquois each had their own plot of land to farm on which they grew corn and other crops. They had no formal government. Did their land have no value? All the archeological evidence shows that farming originated before government. How would that be possible if farmers didn't own their land?

Ignoramuses often believe that the way things work now is the only way they can work. Comprehending that other solutions may be feasible is beyond their limited intellectual capacity.

In the USA, all property rights are created by the government. That's a fact.

Oh, I forgot, you live in the Iroquois nation. hahahaha

But you don't. and the rest is just more of your meandering ramblings.

The Government creates nothing. All law in this Republic is derived from We the People....not the Government. That includes both tax law and basic property rights. Taxation as a form of wealth redistribution is either implied in the Constitution or directly approved by We the People. As a result it is not theft if We the People sanctioned it.

If We the People don't like how the Government is taxing us (ex. Obamacare) we can vote the bastards out. I think many will get voted out next November. That is how our system of Government works. So I guess to sum up, I sort of half agree with you.

 

[Londoner]

How did capitalism cause WWI or WWII?

Perhaps you should start with a more general question.

Under what conditions would capitalism lead to war, if only indirectly.

Answer: Capitalism is the most productive force in history. The rate at which it burns through resources makes it ruthlessly expansionary. Put simply: oil runs out in Texas = boots on the ground in the middle east.

This is also why racism greases the wheels of Empire - because it's easier to justify taking the resources of others if you call them atavistic savages who must be saved by progress.

The point of globalization was to open all the world's wealth producing assets to capital investment. This meant that every corner of the globe needed to be disciplined by neoliberal reforms. Sometimes this lead to direct military conflict, but usually the US found a corruptible faction inside the host nation who was willing to accept a massive IMF Loan for structural improvement (which were fulfilled by US transnationals).

Then, when the host nation strategically defaulted on the loan, said nation would be placed into technical receivership, and its economy would be forced open to predators. Austerity would be imposed on the population which was converted into cheap labor for capital investment. Schools and hospitals in poor neighborhoods would be turned into sweatshops. The wheels of progress would leave the country with polluted rivers and skies . . . along with decimated forests and cropland . . . along with a population of downtrodden serfs living beneath a brutal dictator. Freedom is on the march.

 

[protectionist]

It's safe to assume that the majority of workers are paid what they're worth.

Yeah ? Upon WHAT do you base that statement ? I would guess it to be just the opposite.

He bases it on the laws of economics.

A law is not a basis for a quantitative fact. Either the majority of workers are paid what they're worth or they're being paid less than that. Part of this revolves around the meaning of the word worth. It isn't just what the worker is "worth" to the employer. It is also the intrinsic worth of every human being, and what they SHOULD be entitled to receive. For 40 hours a weeks I'd saying that would be a living wage (that wage than can afford them a "living".

 

[protectionist]

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

1. Of course, you have to demonstrate, and that is understood as a GIVEN in a hypothetical case. Get it ?

If it's "hypothetical," then you can't claim it has any basis in reality. Let's assume hypothetically that you are getting paid what you're worth. According to your logic, that means income redistribution is theft.

[2. No you may NOT easily get a job anywhere. The economy is bad. White males face constant affirmative action discrimination, and in a bad job market, often, you have to know somebody to get a job. Also, many employers hire foreign immigrants to have cheap labor. You could also be discriminated against because of a low credit score, or any number of other very dumb reasons.?

For whatever reasons your pay is where it's at, that's what you're worth.

Apparently you endorse the Marxian theory of value that says labor has some intrinsic value that isn't determined by the laws of supply and demand. That theory has been demonstrated repeatedly to be pure hooey.

1. Only in terms of "worth" to the employer, but that is not the only criterea that should be considered.

2. No that theory has not been demonstrated repeatedly to be pure hooey. The intrinsic fact is not a matter of "value" to an employer. It is a matter of ethics, and what kind of a society we are, where morality plays a part, or is it all just balanced on what is efficient for a relatively small number of profit-hungry biusiness owners ?

 

[Unkotare]

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you..

No he's not, you socialist simpleton.