Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Rodack]

Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals



Abort a Democrat




Stay Free

 

[Avatar4321]

Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals



Abort a Democrat




Stay Free

So you're solution is to abort Democrats? How do you know what political party an unborn child is going to join?

wouldn't the better solution be to convince them with superior arguments to do what is right?

 

[Rodack]

Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals



Abort a Democrat




Stay Free

So you're solution is to abort Democrats? How do you know what political party an unborn child is going to join?

wouldn't the better solution be to convince them with superior arguments to do what is right?

Abort: To terminate (an undertaking or procedure) before implementation.


If we can abort a democrat, their platform is stopped before implemented, usually saving the tax payer trillions


I will try to dumb it down for everyone, I am only here to learn

 

[Againsheila]

You're joking right? Have you looked at the job opportunities lately? Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?

Have you forgotten the real problem with employment? Obama?

BTW sparky, there are more jobs today than there were in 2000.

More than in 2007.

When I graduated highschool, construction jobs paid a minimum of $15.00 an hour, now, more than 30 years later, they pay less than that. Do you know anything else that has gone down that much? Besides pay, I mean.

Jobs in the service industry don't count. They don't pay. Factory and Manufacturing jobs paid, we got rid of those.

Only an idiot believes free trade is actually "free", or that American benefited from it in any way.

 

[Bern80]

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have income redistribution. Wealth redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking income from those who have more income.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.

Semantics Poo. As soon as I receive it, my income IS my wealth.

Says the guy arguing what is 'fair' based on his own subjective judgement of fairness, while pretending his proclamations are fact on account of a dictionary definition.

The absudity never ends.

But whatcha gonna do?

And I think it was you that said we basically get to ascribe whatever definition we want to words. Thanks for showing how very convenient that is. Makes it awfully easy to win an argument.

 

[Wiseacre]

You're joking right? Have you looked at the job opportunities lately? Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?

Have you forgotten the real problem with employment? Obama?

BTW sparky, there are more jobs today than there were in 2000.

More than in 2007.

When I graduated highschool, construction jobs paid a minimum of $15.00 an hour, now, more than 30 years later, they pay less than that. Do you know anything else that has gone down that much? Besides pay, I mean.

Jobs in the service industry don't count. They don't pay. Factory and Manufacturing jobs paid, we got rid of those.

Only an idiot believes free trade is actually "free", or that American benefited from it in any way.

Could I interest you in a discussion tomorrow on the benefits of free trade? I'll post a thread in the Economy area and present my arguments for why it's a good idea.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

??? The income tax is progressive. Your statement makes no ******* sense. The incomes of those on the lower run are in effect enhanced by subsidies from those on the higher rungs. This gives those on the lower rung more money than they would otherwise have, enabling them to get education they might not otherwise have or to save to invest in a business they might not otherwise be able to save for, enabling them to move up the ladder.

I think its a great system. I expect I'll be making a lot more money 20 years from now than I am now - and I'm certainly willing to exchange a higher tax burden 20 years from now when i'll be making much more money in exchange for a lower burden now when I need the money more.

The income tax is in effect - all else being equal - a way to shift the burden from the young and old to the working middle aged. Since we will all - hopefully - be young, middle aged, and old at one point in our lives, that's fine. I'm willing to pay more in middle age - when I'm at the peak of my earning capacity - in exchange for paying less when I'm young and when I'm in retirement - aren't you?

This is precisely how right wing quotations of the number of people paying net income tax distorts the practical truth - YES a lot of those folks will NEVER pay net income tax in their lives. But most of those who pay no net income tax at this point in time are not paying net income tax because they are a) young and have little income due to their lack of experience and education b) temporarily unemployed because of the bad economy c) in retirement and living on less income than they did when working. Quotations of the number of people paying net taxes NOW do not equate to the percent of people who will/have pay/paid net income tax over their lifetimes

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Accumulation of wealth has much more to do with your propensity for thrift and your ability to make wise investments than it does your income tax rate.

 

[Bern80]

The basis of income tax isn't your total wealth, its your total income

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

??? The income tax is progressive. Your statement makes no ******* sense. The incomes of those on the lower run are in effect enhanced by subsidies from those on the higher rungs. This gives those on the lower rung more money than they would otherwise have, enabling them to get education they might not otherwise have or to save to invest in a business they might not otherwise be able to save for, enabling them to move up the ladder.

I think its a great system. I expect I'll be making a lot more money 20 years from now than I am now - and I'm certainly willing to exchange a higher tax burden 20 years from now when i'll be making much more money in exchange for a lower burden now when I need the money more.

The income tax is in effect - all else being equal - a way to shift the burden from the young and old to the working middle aged. Since we will all - hopefully - be young, middle aged, and old at one point in our lives, that's fine. I'm willing to pay more in middle age - when I'm at the peak of my earning capacity - in exchange for paying less when I'm young and when I'm in retirement - aren't you?

This is precisely how right wing quotations of the number of people paying net income tax distorts the practical truth - YES a lot of those folks will NEVER pay net income tax in their lives. But most of those who pay no net income tax at this point in time are not paying net income tax because they are a) young and have little income due to their lack of experience and education b) temporarily unemployed because of the bad economy c) in retirement and living on less income than they did when working. Quotations of the number of people paying net taxes NOW do not equate to the percent of people who will/have pay/paid net income tax over their lifetimes

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Accumulation of wealth has much more to do with your propensity for thrift and your ability to make wise investments than it does your income tax rate.

You are amazingly short sighted.

 

[DiamondDave]

Guess mani is scared to actually answer the question asked

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is a little curious how so many regulations nominally designed to punish the wealthy and powerful actually protect them.

Almost like they were designed that way.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

??? The income tax is progressive. Your statement makes no ******* sense. The incomes of those on the lower run are in effect enhanced by subsidies from those on the higher rungs. This gives those on the lower rung more money than they would otherwise have, enabling them to get education they might not otherwise have or to save to invest in a business they might not otherwise be able to save for, enabling them to move up the ladder.

I think its a great system. I expect I'll be making a lot more money 20 years from now than I am now - and I'm certainly willing to exchange a higher tax burden 20 years from now when i'll be making much more money in exchange for a lower burden now when I need the money more.

The income tax is in effect - all else being equal - a way to shift the burden from the young and old to the working middle aged. Since we will all - hopefully - be young, middle aged, and old at one point in our lives, that's fine. I'm willing to pay more in middle age - when I'm at the peak of my earning capacity - in exchange for paying less when I'm young and when I'm in retirement - aren't you?

This is precisely how right wing quotations of the number of people paying net income tax distorts the practical truth - YES a lot of those folks will NEVER pay net income tax in their lives. But most of those who pay no net income tax at this point in time are not paying net income tax because they are a) young and have little income due to their lack of experience and education b) temporarily unemployed because of the bad economy c) in retirement and living on less income than they did when working. Quotations of the number of people paying net taxes NOW do not equate to the percent of people who will/have pay/paid net income tax over their lifetimes

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Accumulation of wealth has much more to do with your propensity for thrift and your ability to make wise investments than it does your income tax rate.

You are amazingly short sighted.

Right because looking at taxation over an entires person's life is "short sighted" but looking at taxation at this instant is "long term planning". Sometimes I wonder if you know what words mean.

 

[Bern80]

??? The income tax is progressive. Your statement makes no ******* sense. The incomes of those on the lower run are in effect enhanced by subsidies from those on the higher rungs. This gives those on the lower rung more money than they would otherwise have, enabling them to get education they might not otherwise have or to save to invest in a business they might not otherwise be able to save for, enabling them to move up the ladder.

I think its a great system. I expect I'll be making a lot more money 20 years from now than I am now - and I'm certainly willing to exchange a higher tax burden 20 years from now when i'll be making much more money in exchange for a lower burden now when I need the money more.

The income tax is in effect - all else being equal - a way to shift the burden from the young and old to the working middle aged. Since we will all - hopefully - be young, middle aged, and old at one point in our lives, that's fine. I'm willing to pay more in middle age - when I'm at the peak of my earning capacity - in exchange for paying less when I'm young and when I'm in retirement - aren't you?

This is precisely how right wing quotations of the number of people paying net income tax distorts the practical truth - YES a lot of those folks will NEVER pay net income tax in their lives. But most of those who pay no net income tax at this point in time are not paying net income tax because they are a) young and have little income due to their lack of experience and education b) temporarily unemployed because of the bad economy c) in retirement and living on less income than they did when working. Quotations of the number of people paying net taxes NOW do not equate to the percent of people who will/have pay/paid net income tax over their lifetimes





Accumulation of wealth has much more to do with your propensity for thrift and your ability to make wise investments than it does your income tax rate.

You are amazingly short sighted.

Right because looking at taxation over an entires person's life is "short sighted" but looking at taxation at this instant is "long term planning". Sometimes I wonder if you know what words mean.

Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.

People do that every time they take out a home loan - or any loan for that matter - shit for brains.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reality is that without the "rich", there is much less opportunity for the poor to become unpoor or even to do more than subsist. You cannot 'punish' or take wealth from the rich without hurting the poor. I have cited specific examples over various threads over the past months and won't repeat those here unless necessary.

Many here are not making a distinction between income and wealth; however these are not the same thing. Income, however, is a component of a person's wealth.

As for the morality of wealth redistribution:

If it is immoral for you to take what is mine and use it for your personal benefit, it is immoral for your government to do that on your behalf.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're joking right? Have you looked at the job opportunities lately? Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?

Have you forgotten the real problem with employment? Obama?

BTW sparky, there are more jobs today than there were in 2000.

More than in 2007.

When I graduated highschool, construction jobs paid a minimum of $15.00 an hour, now, more than 30 years later, they pay less than that. Do you know anything else that has gone down that much? Besides pay, I mean.

Jobs in the service industry don't count. They don't pay. Factory and Manufacturing jobs paid, we got rid of those.

Only an idiot believes free trade is actually "free", or that American benefited from it in any way.

These free trade agreements were disaster on the drawing board. They were devised in theory as a means to boost the economies of third world countries.
Of course what happened was the laws of unintended consequences quickly came to bear. Fast forward to today.....SHIT..
We need fair trade. Not free trade.
Free trade cannot be established with an economically inferior trading partner.

 

[manifold]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic. Government equals wealth redistribution. Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.

 

[DiamondDave]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic. Government equals wealth redistribution. Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.

No... your continual repetition of the myth that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth....

And the benefit of the product of national defense is the EXACT SAME for every citizen.... again... answer the question posed....

 

[manifold]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic. Government equals wealth redistribution. Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.

No... your... repetition... that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth.

I agree, my repetition doesn't make it true. It's the fact that it's true, that makes it true. When you can conceive of a government that doesn't tax, you let me know. Until then, government will always be redistributing wealth. Your repeated denial of truth doesn't make it go away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic. Government equals wealth redistribution. Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.

No... your continual repetition of the myth that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth....

It does.... if you re-define the term for your own self-serving puposes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic. Government equals wealth redistribution. Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.

No... your... repetition... that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth.

I agree, my repetition doesn't make it true. It's the fact that it's true, that makes it true. When you can conceive of a government that doesn't tax, you let me know. Until then, government will always be redistributing wealth. Your repeated denial of truth doesn't make it go away.

You seem to think it does.. with the ONLY 'proof' being your assertion.... and it is not a government taxation that is in question.... it's your asinine and unproven assertion that government equates to wealth redistribution

Now AGAIN... Answer the ******* QUESTION POSED.... or do you need me to post it for like the 10th time??