is opposing the redistribution of wealth contradicting...

[Jhhnn]

When you are donating to charity, you are using your first amendment rights and targeting the people you want to help or the charity that you think needs your money. When you send money through taxation, you know that at least 1/3 of that money will be wasted and tied up in government red tape. Government hires people for too much money and then wastes your money with communist and fascist paperwork and idealogical agendas.

Modern "Money" is a construct of government, a way to create a higher level of economic activity than barter. As such, govt actually creates demand for money through taxation, which it then spends back into the economy. Modern taxes are payable only with "Money". W/o govt and taxes, the whole idea of money would be a non-sequiter. In exchange for that higher level of economic activity, we pay taxes. And within the concept of egalitarian democracy in a constitutional republic, the representatives of the people decide how taxes are levied.

From my own POV, the current crop of anti-tax ravers are idiots, because federal income taxes are at their lowest of any time since WW2, and because we gain more from paying them than we ever lose in doing so.

The other side of it is that we've abandoned many of the mechanisms that helped send money from the top down, like unions & highly progressive income taxes, things that help us maintain social cohesion & a thriving middle class. OTOH, we've strengthened the mechanisms that send money to the top- low top tier taxes, free trade & international labor arbitrage, & reduced financial constraints on lending.

All modern democracies engage in income redistribution to some degree, simply as a mechanism of self defense for the middle class, which basically wouldn't exist w/o it, nor would many of the things we take for granted, like clean air & water, safe food & drugs, national security, and security in our homes & possessions. We'd be like much of the third world, where that simply doesn't happen, largely because of a very skewed income distribution & lack of effective taxation for those who receive the lion's share of income.

 

[Craig234]

The only flaw with your argumnet is that wealth is not finite with a fiat currency. Albeith land ownership is still finite, and that is the biggest transfer of real wealth that has occurred in the last century during every bust cycle. However, the richest don't hold all their assets as land so only a fraction is actual wealth.

Imagine this:
If over the last 40 years (time since gold standard was abandoned), I went from owning 10% of infinity to owning 70% of infinity, while at the same time that the other 99+% went from owning 2% of infinity to 25% of infinity, does it really matter since we all own a fraction of infinity?

That's fallacious. There's not infinite money to be printed, policy prevents that.

False premise.

 

[blackangst1]

That's fallacious. There's not infinite money to be printed, policy prevents that.

False premise.

No, theres not. But much of our wealth and what you call accumulation is virtual. THAT is infinite.

 

[Zebo]

In some ways we were more redistributionist when country was founded up until ending of homesteading. You used to get FREE land which is a means of production whether it just has walnut trees to sell or you decide to farm. Today you get debt for opportunity and many never escape to debt spiral from college loans to homes to reverse mortgages many are owned instead of own. So to answer your question no. The founders were far more into redistribution.

 

[zubbs1]

So what? Taxes wouldn't have been raised to create govt programs if private charity had been adequate to the task at hand.

The problem is you arbitrarily determine the government is wiser in establishing what that minimal level of achievement is. Its laughable to me that anyone just attributes that government is somehow more benevolent as an institution than all of humanity. The government has not won the war on poverty (or any other war they created for that matter). Even if they were capable of achieving, or nearly achieving, the goals they once established, they will simply change the way that poverty is defined, calculated, or recorded so that it would appear that they were still losing but for a little bit more tax revenue to direct at x/y/z projects. Its a very slippery slope putting them in charge of elevating the lifestyle of the masses.

Its really quite simple:
The government is not fiscally prudent with its spending. They never have been and never will be. By that very nature, any argument that they are better at siphoning dollars from individuals to choose which entities receive that 'charity', is a fallacy; end of story.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is you arbitrarily determine the government is wiser in establishing what that minimal level of achievement is. Its laughable to me that anyone just attributes that government is somehow more benevolent as an institution than all of humanity. The government has not won the war on poverty (or any other war they created for that matter). Even if they were capable of achieving, or nearly achieving, the goals they once established, they will simply change the way that poverty is defined, calculated, or recorded so that it would appear that they were still losing but for a little bit more tax revenue to direct at x/y/z projects. Its a very slippery slope putting them in charge of elevating the lifestyle of the masses.

Its really quite simple:
The government is not fiscally prudent with its spending. They never have been and never will be. By that very nature, any argument that they are better at siphoning dollars from individuals to choose which entities receive that 'charity', is a fallacy; end of story.

Now you're just running around in ideological circles of simulated rationality. In the Depression era, if the people had found private charity to be adequate to the task, they wouldn't have called upon govt to act. The rest is just obfuscation, justification for an ideological position established independent of factual information.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

So what? Taxes wouldn't have been raised to create govt programs if private charity had been adequate to the task at hand.

Wrong, look at what happened during the great depression. Millions of people were out of jobs and charities stepped up and took care of them till it was over. Rooselvelt's "Great Society" plan was a temporary fix to a problem existed back then. Nowadays we have people gaming the system who have never worked a day in their life because its easier for them not to work than to earn their living when someone else will provide for their "needs" and "wants". This is why we are such an economic failure. We provide where we shouldn't.

 

[cybrsage]

Both private charities and government aid are needed. They are complimentary. Neither one is sufficient for the needs of the people.

 

[zubbs1]

That's fallacious. There's not infinite money to be printed, policy prevents that.

False premise.

Obviously there is no such thing as infinity as a number. However, as a thought exercise, our fiat monetary system allows for us to continue to chase after infinity (so long as the US dollar is the agreed upon world reserve currency, which it will remain by military force if necessary until it finally implodes into hyper inflation). There is in fact nothing stopping the FED from creating dollars (see quantitative easing 1 and 2). When you can create a bond and then purchase it yourself (monetize your debt), you have by definition created money from nothing.

What this means is that at this very moment, nothing stops the entire population of people that currently have no wealth from reaching the level of a 1 percenter (except for the influence put on our system of laws by the current 1 percenters) especially if you can convince everyone that you have no inflation (which our government is excellent at doing through changing how inflation is calculated). If we had gold backed currency, the only way for any of those people with no wealth to reach a 1 percenter is to take a portion back from someone currently already there (or take the collective whole of all the other people in the 99%).

Does that make sense?

 

[sonicdrummer20]

Both private charities and government aid are needed. They are complimentary. Neither one is sufficient for the needs of the people.

Well at this point it comes down to the people putting forth enough effort to be self sufficient and not rely on someone else's dollar to eat. The public mindset should be "I would rather starve than take someone else's money for my own purposes".

 

[zubbs1]

Now you're just running around in ideological circles of simulated rationality. In the Depression era, if the people had found private charity to be adequate to the task, they wouldn't have called upon govt to act. The rest is just obfuscation, justification for an ideological position established independent of factual information.

There is no provable position here. The government sets the level that equals no more poverty, or the poor people set the level that is no more poverty. Neither will ever agree with each other or with anyone else. You seem agreeable to let the government take your possesions and determine how to give them to others. I believe that each individual is best trusted to know what and how much of their possesions they can give to another.


People will always want what they want and they ultimately want more than someone else thinks they should have (no matter what their current position is). Semantically arguing which entity is more judicious in delegating scarce resources is pointless (or in the least never outside the realm of ideology).

 

[piasabird]

It is a fallacy if you think you can ever satisfy the needs of the people of any country. The people will always want more from their government! You are a fool if you think the government will ever be able to keep people happy!

 

[Munky]

I'm against all kinds of wealth redistribution. You wanna solve the problem, close regulation loopholes and enforce existing laws to stop the rich from abusing the system. End the lobbying practice of buying off politicians. But if the rich made their money honestly, the poor deserve none of it, I don't care how much they whine and moan.

 

[Abwx]

You seem agreeable to let the government take your possesions and determine how to give them to others.

That is , while you think that, instead, this power should be given
to private individuals and entities , wich at the end would forcibly
lead to rehabilitation of slavery....

 

[zubbs1]

That is , while you think that, instead, this power should be given
to private individuals and entities , wich at the end would forcibly
lead to rehabilitation of slavery....

This implies that without a government mandate, people are not charitable, which contradicts the historical record.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong, look at what happened during the great depression. Millions of people were out of jobs and charities stepped up and took care of them till it was over. Rooselvelt's "Great Society" plan was a temporary fix to a problem existed back then. Nowadays we have people gaming the system who have never worked a day in their life because its easier for them not to work than to earn their living when someone else will provide for their "needs" and "wants". This is why we are such an economic failure. We provide where we shouldn't.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read up-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Relief_Administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration

Both private charities and government aid are needed. They are complimentary. Neither one is sufficient for the needs of the people.

Agreed.

 

[infoiltrator]

The last I knew the start up failure rate for new businesses was/is over 80%.
It is also true rich failures are unlikely to go hungry.
It seems that neither the book nor the movie regarding California guarding its borders to prevent the entry of poor job seekers remains.

In the Great Depression era you could do without utilities to an amazing degree. Many people used land to farm, produce food. No one was enforcing tenancy laws. A lot of poor people helped a lot of poor people, and an amazing number of scams, hustles, marriage for money, prostitution, gambling, swindles and frauds took place.

People are not perfect, laws are not perfect, governments are not perfect and are not meant to be.

Jesus attempted to promote conscience over law, overthrow corruption in the state religion, encouraged people to accept political occupation and compromise.
His followers created a world religious hierarchy/government known for both saints and corruption. Slavery and wars. Cathedrals and squalor.
The Catholic Church threatened to become the worlds largest landowner and most successful and powerful business.

Every time you patch one hole people find two or three more.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit will never be, can never be, clean, direct, and simple/
Not, never, no way.
Dreams, good, bad, murderous, saintly, perverted, fuel life.
Our nation became the greatest productive force in the world in like 60 or 70 years, then our capitalists sent it away.
You expect the training and institutions forged in that time to change over night to altered reality, and the poor to finance those changes?

Governments ALWAYS redistribute wealth, crime may or may not.

Fundamentally, most successful people figure they earned and deserve to keep their wealth.
Luck had nothing to do with it. Krap. Nonsense.

One of my Aunts married into a wealthy family in the 50's. Family got swindled into buying some lousy land in their great granddads day.
Hay, who could tell they'd want to build an airport on it?
You think landowners knew about oil deposits? Back before kerosine had value, before whale oil ran out? When Nantucket was one of the richest areas in the world. on whale oil?!!

Henry Ford set new standards of living. The legacy is semi ghost towns.
You can choose only a little..

 

[IGBT]

your failed assumption is that all will remain the same and change out of your control will not occur: "Governments' fiscal burdens will increase significantly over the coming decade, with the highest deterioration in public finances likely to occur in Europe and other advanced G-20 economies, such as Japan and the U.S.," S&P said in a statement on Tuesday.

Get ready for yet another credit down grade in the US.

 

[cybrsage]

Well at this point it comes down to the people putting forth enough effort to be self sufficient and not rely on someone else's dollar to eat. The public mindset should be "I would rather starve than take someone else's money for my own purposes".

IMO, charities and government programs should be there to aid during a down time. The goal for everyone is to move up and off them. From time to time, anyone can suddenly find themselves in a bad situation and need help...but it should be temporary.

 

[IGBT]

IMO, charities and government programs should be there to aid during a down time. The goal for everyone is to move up and off them. From time to time, anyone can suddenly find themselves in a bad situation and need help...but it should be temporary.

fly's in the face of liberalism which encourages legacy welfare and endless and growing public assistance.

 

[Tom]

fly's in the face of liberalism which encourages legacy welfare and endless and growing public assistance.

No we don't. Dollars for science, education, large scale infrastructure improvements.

You know, we could spend billions of government dollars improving the electric grid and it would pay for itself many times over.

The truth is if there's a growing need for welfare and public assistance it's a failure of capitalism to provide training and jobs for workers. Largely because capitalism as it's practiced now is all about short term gains, not stability and long term gains.