• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do YOU think the Government should redistribute money

Should the Government redistribute money?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 28 58.3%
  • Total voters
    48
Gipper said:
Sure, I vote for total and complete redistribution.

The rub is that, in 20 years, disparity will look similar to what it does today.

Getting wealthy is one thing. Staying wealthy is a whole other ballgame.
Click to expand...

proven by the fact that many many sports stars, lottery winners and entertainers (can you say MC Hammer) are broke despite making millions of dollars
 
obvious Child said:
How are we defining redistribution?

Taxing people to pay for firefighters is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for veteran's healthcare is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for food stamps is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for a new submarine is redistribution.

Functional government is redistribution.
Click to expand...

that is indirect redistribution when I pay for your share of the fire fighters or police protection or I pay property taxes for schools when my son will never attend a public school

that is different than direct redistribution where the money of the productive is taken and GIVEN to the unproductive
 
obvious Child said:
How are we defining redistribution?

Taxing people to pay for firefighters is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for veteran's healthcare is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for food stamps is redistribution.
Taxing people to pay for a new submarine is redistribution.

Functional government is redistribution.
Click to expand...

I think of redistribution as money moved around for the sake of moving money around. Paying for legitimate government services is not what I think of when I talk about redistribution. I extend it to money moved around for corrupt purposes, like buying votes or paying off political favors, but at the core of the idea of wealth redistribution is this idea:

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:
Individual responsibility! Parents teach it to your children please.
 
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.
 
PeteEU said:
Sorry but the definition is quite clear. Taking money for someone to give another is wealth redistribution.

Now I could claim that universal healthcare is not wealth redistribution either under the same conditions you put on policemen and the military. Or the public library, or some road at the other end of the country that I will never ever use. Now I wont do that, because I fully accept that UHC, the policeman, military, road, public library, public sector worker that picks up trash or border police.. all are part of a massive wealth redistribution system with our tax money.
Click to expand...


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:
GmH said:
We all know Obama wants to redistribute money. Do you feel the same way. Tax the rich, tax the corps and give to the poor.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think it is appropriate or constitutional for the federal government to give charity to the poor. It should stick to exercising the powers the states give it when they formed their compact, which are enumerated in Article I, section 8:
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.
Click to expand...
 
GmH said:
We all know Obama wants to redistribute money. Do you feel the same way. Tax the rich, tax the corps and give to the poor.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The question is really whether or not the government should spend any money whatsoever on the poor. If you think the answer to that question is yes, then you necessarily believe in some redistribution.
 
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.
 
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
 
On most issues facing the country is isn't a matter of up or down, yes or no, but rather a matter of degree. I am proud to pay taxes to help those legitimately disabled live a decent life. But, as another poster stated, what about people who make a free-will choice to not work. I don't want to feed them.

I do not agree with President Obama that everyone deserves their share and we should tax workers into poverty to pay those who chose poverty.
 
"Redistribute" is such a loaded and subjective term that I am exercising an act of civil disobedience and refusing to answer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom