that is different than direct redistribution where the money of the productive is taken and GIVEN to the unproductive
Wealth is not shared among the people in the way we prefer, so we are going to take money from some people and give it to other people for the sake of the distribution of wealth being different than it currently is.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 09-23-12 at 08:10 PM.
"The knowledge and prudence of the poor themselves, are absolutely the only means by which any general and permanent improvement in their condition can be effected." - Thomas Malthus
Individual responsibility! Parents teach it to your children please.
COMEDY 4 ALL! it's a life Philosophy.
Chuck Norris once got bit by a king cobra. after five days of agonizing pain, the cobra died!
Yes they should give it all to me.
I don't really care what they do with the money, as long as it's taken from turtledude.
Actually i think Obama is mostly referring to social services. Would be quite difficult to literally give the multitude well-paying jobs, but single payer health care for example would make taxing the rich worthwhile. If the taxes just went to fat raises for the senate, write offs for GE, or $100 billion fighter planes that will never be used, then that's kind of redundant. Not that i think he'll accomplish or even really cares about this. He said the same crap 4 years ago, yet we've seen the income gap widen.
Yes. The gov already redistributes wealth already, both candidates want to, one candidate just believes in a somewhat more progressive redistribution than the other one.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
This is becoming interesting. These subtle details are where we find if there is a grey area; if there is, then as other posters have suggested, it's not a matter of if there ought to be re-distribution of wealth, but how much is appropriate.
To fully vet this idea, what would you say to this definition: redistribution of wealth occurs when people who pay different amounts in the way of taxes do not have a proportional opportunity to goods or services offered by the government for the amount they paid.
In other words, if you paid twice the amount of taxes as me, you should have the opportunity to receive goods (including money) or services that are valued at twice the level. Assuming a fair tax system, that would indicate that your earnings are twice the amount of mine, so protection of your assets, which are a result of your earnings, would be valued at twice the amount, which is proportional. But if I receive a service by the government for which you are not eligible, i.e. universal healthcare, then your wealth has been redistributed to me. Likewise, if we both receive the same opportunity of medicare, but you've paid in twice that of me, then our receipts are not proportional to our tax payments and a redistribution of wealth has occurred.
Last edited by fredmertzz; 09-27-12 at 01:59 PM.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
(avatar by Thomas Nast)
Redistribution is not simply the government spending money on services for its people.
Giving money & services to the people in a manner that is proportional to the taxes paid in to the government is not redistribution of wealth. It's government control over those services, yes. But if you pay 1% of the nation's taxes and receive 1% of the nations services from those taxes, your wealth has not been redistributed. It's just been spent for you.
And due to economies of scale, there are some things that are absolutely more economical for the government to do, so long as it is an absolute necessity for each person to need the service and each person has equal access to that service. And of course, the power for the government to provide the service must be given in the constitution, per the 10th amendment, and if it's not, then an amendment must be made to adjust the constitution allowing for this power.
This of course severely limits what the government can do. But to avoid redistribution of wealth, this is how we would have to proceed. This is what makes sense to me from a government standpoint.
We should redistribute money, yes. It just should not be government mandated. 51% of the people should not be allowed to control 100% of the people's tax-money for the benefit of any less than all 100% of the people. No matter which party is in charge. Otherwise, this partisan bickering will always hold our society back from progressing at full speed both socially and economically.