it is a redistribution of some wealth, i suppose, but it cannot be considered "redistribution of wealth". no wealthy person is going to become not wealthy by paying 39% income tax or 20% capital gains. on the flipside, no poor person is going to become rich by getting food stamps, subsidized housing, job training and $300/month to help raise 3 kids. i consider it unfortunate, but necessary. in such a great country we can guarantee a decent basal standard of living. for me, this is mostly important for children. able-bodied (and minded) adults shouldnt get this sort of help. i acknowledge there will be abuse of the system, but it is unavoidable and should be minimized. this is not a valid reason to not help certain people though. yes, taxes should go to pay these things. im pretty sure that $ "given" to poor people is minimal in comparison to medicare, social security, infrastructure and military. i dont care about precedents. you do whats right, when its right, and stop it when it needs to be stopped. vote the bums out and vote in new people regardless of party. its wrong to not want to give a poor woman with 3 kids $200/month in food stamps because you think that in 5 yrs it will be $2000/month.
Okay so what you're saying is that there is no such thing as redistribution of wealth? When I don't like something, I'll start pretending it doesn't exist either.
I'm saying that taxation does not constitute "redistribution of wealth". If "redistribution of wealth exists" you haven't made a case for it with taxes. Taxes aren't "wealth", they are a liability.
gumborue...we're not as far apart on this issue as it may seem. I just want to see results. I don't want to continue to do this over and over again with future generations. I feel for the children but am adamantly opposed to rewarding irresponsible behavior. I don't believe anyone will get rich living off the government but I'm against making them comfortable enough to the point where they never lift a finger to contribute. Government programs should be designed to sustain you...not provide you with a big screen tv, or spinner wheels, or money to go to NBA games, etc. It should be JUST enough to have food on the table, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head. They shouldn't receive any disposal income for entertainment, designer apparel, jewelry, etc. Now some will say that doesn't currently happen but I can tell you it's happening to a great extent in the city of New Orleans. (okay red...insert your proof demands here) People were breaking into closed projects after Katrina DEMANDING their entitlement to return to THEIR homes. Some were saying their family has resided in the same project since it was built. This doesn't seem like a short term assistance program to me. Others apply for job training to fulfill a requirement and yet never attend the classes or attempt to seek employment. Just like the rich, the poor have exposed many loopholes in the system. I want the loopholes closed for both. This is a great country and it's wonderful that we can help those in need. I just think we need to scrutinize the "those in need" a little better.
According to Wikipedia (since you love internet facts)... Redistribution of wealth refers to the transfer of wealth from some individuals to others. The transfer of wealth can occur in various ways. Some methods for transferring wealth are voluntary transfers from those who have it to those who do not. Other methods involve forcibly removing the wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who do not. Several political systems are designed to redistribute wealth including Communism, Socialism, and Welfare Capitalism. Forced transfer of wealth Some methods for this are: welfare, slavery, taxation, inflation, devaluation, government policies, or theft Call it what you want Robin Hood.
Why do you imagine that it is anything but this? Welfare recipients average income is 67% of the poverty level. Well, prove it then! I know you can't show me any welfare rule or law that show government benefits are allowed for luxury purchases. Let me suggest a couple of things to you: 1. Poor people don't like to look poor, who can blame them?. A lot of those "bling" accessories are not real gold and are cheap Dollar-store knock-offs. 2. A lot of the poor people that you assume are on welfare are actually working hard at low-paying jobs and receiving no benefits. If they are foolish enough to spend their hard-earned money on shiny rims instead of putting it into an IRA, it's not the fault of the government. Low-income housing is effectively a government assistance program, not just for welfare families but for the working poor in areas where they is insufficient private low-income housing. Many cities also have a large private low-income housing area in older neighborhoods. In NO, these century-old neighborhoods houses were destroyed during Katrina. The owners cannot afford to rebuild them and still rent them as low-income housing. It is not surprising that low-income families insist that the government rebuild the public housing. No, the requirements are much tighter than that. The welfare reforms are working, if you bother to check. I can't argue with this. I only suggest that much has already been done to achieve what you ask for. Take a look.
All of these wonderful programs you discuss were used in New Orleans East. You know the New Orleans East that used to have the nicest mall in the state...used to have Mardi Gras parades...used to have nice restaurants...etc. Katrina didn't detroy New Orleans East. It was long gone before Katrina struck. People were given opportunity and we see the results. Refer back to my post at 10:09 last night and you'll see why I have little faith in plans enacted by Democrats. I don't believe they work at even a fraction of the successes you trumpet but are necessary to maintain votes at a cheap cost. Damn, I keep forgetting...you're not a Democrat! :thumb:
Taxation does not take wealth from individuals and give it to other individuals. Taxation pays for the costs of government. I've already explained this. This is a ridiculous list. "theft", "government policy", "inflation"? Obviously, taxation is not forced. It is a privilege of citizenship. You are free to renounce your citizenship and move to China. Neither does it transfer "wealth". Tax is a liability, not wealth. A proposal to tax the rich more fairly is a "transfer of liability" to those who have the greatest stake and greatest share of responsibility.
Red, While I understand your argument here I still think Taxation is "forced". If you want to be a citizen you are "forced" to pay taxes as it is not an option. Now of course as you pointed out you don't have to be a citizen etc. etc. I sort of link to like toll bridges. Yah I want to get to the other side and yes there may be other out of the way alternates but it's pretty much "forced" that I pay that toll to cross at that point. Whether that is a good analogy or not I'm unsure. To further my thought a Tax is much more forced when there are programs added in for those that don't pay (see my last argument). The richer people pay for the poorer people. I don't like a system where any person is forced to pay for others. It should be an election on your taxes. I would gladly pay more if I knew it was going to certain area vs. the welfare state but I don't get that luxury because it is "forced".
I was told the same thing (over $300 MORE a month for just me because of my age) so I got an individual policy that does not cover pregnancy. I don't smoke. Drink on occasion. Not on drugs. Not inhaling paint thinner. No high cholesterol or blood pressure. But I can't dream of paying $400+ a month on health insurance.
