Do YOU think the Government should redistribute money

PeteEU said:

It is the primary role of government. Tax people to pay for things that are for the common good... that is redistributing money/wealth.

Click to expand...

Building roads and providing for national defense are not wealth redisribution. The former is infrastructure investment for market maximization and the latter a matter of necessity. Trying to claim that everything is wealth redistribution completely misses the point.

ecofarm said:

Building roads and providing for national defense are not wealth redisribution. The former is infrastructure investment for market maximization and the latter a matter of necessity. Trying to claim that everything is wealth redistribution completely misses the point.

Click to expand...

Of course it is lol.

You are taking money from people to invest in something. It is not like every single person you have taken money from directly benefits from the investments you make. Hence it is wealth redistribution.

PeteEU said:

Of course it is lol.

You are taking money from people to invest in something. It is not like every single person you have taken money from directly benefits from the investments you make. Hence it is wealth redistribution.

Click to expand...

Building roads is not wealth redistribution, and neither is national defense. If one cannot understand that, then one does not understand what wealth redistribution means.

ecofarm said:

Building roads is not wealth redistribution, and neither is national defense. If one cannot understand that, then one does not understand what wealth redistribution means.

Click to expand...

Oh?

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.

Click to expand...

Redistribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So taking your money by the government and paying some solider or policeman or postman is wealth redistribution. Taking your money to pay some guy to make a road for someone else is wealth redistribution.

If it is everything, then it is nothing. That's your argument? That position is pathetic.

Paying someone market rate for labor is not wealth redistribution. That's people working. And presuming that the workers could not get paid the same elsewhere is ridiculous. Your premise is a joke and your rationale, well, it doesn't exist. There's no rationale for considering work the same as welfare.

ecofarm said:

If it is everything, then it is nothing. That's your argument? That position is pathetic.

Click to expand...

EVERYTHING the government does redistributes wealth. Since it is everything, the whole "redistribution of wealth! Blarg!" talking point is pathetic because it artificially truncates the definition of "redistribute" to encompass only the things you don't like while conveniently ignoring the redistribution that you agree with.

Voltaire X said:

What specific pieces of legislation has Obama supported that redistribute wealth?

Click to expand...

I stated that Obama wants to redistribute wealth and if he can get away with it he will.

PeteEU said:

So taking your money by the government and paying some solider or policeman or postman is wealth redistribution. Taking your money to pay some guy to make a road for someone else is wealth redistribution.

Click to expand...

Certainly not. That's what taxes are all about. Redistribution of wealth is taking money from one individual and give it to another... just because... Social welfare, for example.
The policeman and the solder work for everybody, not just certain individuals. If the policeman was protecting a certain individual, that would be private service. In fact, many private security firms do that.

Canell said:

Certainly not. That's what taxes are all about. Redistribution of wealth is taking money from one individual and give it to another... just because... Social welfare, for example.
The policeman and the solder work for everybody, not just certain individuals. If the policeman was protecting a certain individual, that would be private service. In fact, many private security firms do that.

Click to expand...

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.

Voltaire X said:

That's existed for decades and decades. The only thing Obama has done to the tax rates is extend the bush cuts.

Click to expand...

More than decades, progressive taxation is the ONLY way income tax has EVER been collected.

I agree with this somewhat but the argument will always remain "how many angels can fit on the head of a needle". In other words we can want what we want all we want but is it really going to happen no matter who is in power? Unlikely

All government leaders are in some way or another beholden to the wealthy and the wealthy if they are crossed have enough power and influence to create a situation that would make the Great Depression look like a cake walk and they would not be affected.

There are some wealthy out there (Damn few) who still see their role as collective not individualistic. But they are not enough to help influence the others who vastly outnumber them.

I may sound like gloom and doom but it is the reality of the world. The best we can hope for is to chip away at those areas that can help out the lower and middle class and maybe get alittle more out of the rich.

Just a thought. Lots of people are yelling for government spending cuts and reducing the size of government. Thats nice.

What they do not realize or perhaps understand is that willy nilly crap doesn't work. IMHO the only two things Carter did right in his presidency was to get the Alaska Lands Settlement Act passed and actually effectively reduce the size of Government. Clinton took a shot at this too but was not as effective.

Here's how he did it.

Created a review board of existing federal managers and mandated them to find duplication in agencies within the same department.
Find programs within any department that had outlived their usefullness or did not serve any productive purpose.
Assign qualified managers to agencies and departments who were veterans of those groups so that they person in charge know how the system ran and could do it effectively. Unfortunately he did not do this at the cabinet level.
Closed military bases which had outlived their usefullness and ordered the Pentagon to stop asking for money to run bases that had been closed for years.

He never got a chance to complete this job but at least he tried.

Wolfman24

If one is defining REDISTRIBUTION as the government taking in taxes and then spending those taxes on services to people, how could government NOT be involved in redistribution and still exist and do its job?

lpast said:

Obama signed it...but the real name should be....Romney/PelosiCare.....modeled after mittsies mass plan and instituted and mangled by Pelosi....hey lets not forget something else here...why dont we call it SCOTUSCARE it was upheld by the supreme court

Click to expand...

Like it or hate it, Romneycare was passed on a STATE level by state representatives. Thats how it SHOULD be done. Pelosi and co DID manage to ram through legislation, with votes from politicians who admitted they never even read about what they were voting for and STILL dont know. When the bill comes due...theres going to be a whole lot of crying...primarily from those CURRENT liberal supporters who are going to be forced into securing healthcare or being taxed againt their will for it. Well played!

As for the 'Obamacare' moniker...its kinda tough to be upset about the name when Obama himself is running around touting his successful passage of the legislation.

I don't care what you call it, the real debate is over what a person values and associate their identity with.

Through the philosophies of both schools of thought, republican or democrat, the republican basically identifies with the individual. "Why should I pay money for other people?" "It is my money!" Now I hope republicans know, that if a government were to exist taxes have to be paid. There can never be absolutely no taxes.

Now the democrats identify with other people, and some, the planet. So their value system has to do with helping other people, and sometimes, helping the planet.

The point that I am trying to make, is there is no point into bickering back and forth, trying to stump the other person with reasoning. In order for someone to go from one school of thought to the other, something happens to the value system of the individual.

The true debate, is how do you associate with other people in our country and why? That is what is meaningful. And honestly, people cannot change their stance unless people have a philosophical discussion about how people should treat other people, because we are talking about identity. That is much deeper in an individual compared to whom raised taxes and why.

PeteEU said:

Sorry but the definition is quite clear. Taking money for someone to give another is wealth redistribution.

Click to expand...

Please, read it carefully - taking money from one and give it to someone else. Without anything in exchange that is. Taking money from you to pay the street sweeper is not money redistribution. It's the state, municipality, etc being an employer to the sweeper. The same applies for police, military, fire brigade and so on. Redistribution is the state giving money to someone unemployed.

Canell said:

Please, read it carefully - taking money from one and give it to someone else. Without anything in exchange that is. Taking money from you to pay the street sweeper is not money redistribution. It's the state, municipality, etc being an employer to the sweeper. The same applies for police, military, fire brigade and so on. Redistribution is the state giving money to someone unemployed.

Click to expand...

Nope, read the definition. There is no requirement that there be no exchange of services for said transfer of payment.

In fact, I would claim that the state giving money to someone unemployed is in fact a second round of redistribution of wealth.. first the person gave money via taxes to the state with the knowledge that it went to things like military, police, roads and... unemployment insurance.

PeteEU said:

Nope, read the definition. There is no requirement that there be no exchange of services for said transfer of payment.

Click to expand...

OK, let's read together what you posted:

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.

Click to expand...

Anything about police, military, trash? No! Only welfare-like policies, without anything in return from the beneficent. The government playing the Good Ol' Dad.

You confuse welfare with public services, I can tell you that much.

Public service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

VanceMack said:

Like it or hate it, Romneycare was passed on a STATE level by state representatives. Thats how it SHOULD be done. Pelosi and co DID manage to ram through legislation, with votes from politicians who admitted they never even read about what they were voting for and STILL dont know. When the bill comes due...theres going to be a whole lot of crying...primarily from those CURRENT liberal supporters who are going to be forced into securing healthcare or being taxed againt their will for it. Well played!

As for the 'Obamacare' moniker...its kinda tough to be upset about the name when Obama himself is running around touting his successful passage of the legislation.

Click to expand...

No no NO you cant spin this anyway you want.....romney CREATED IT and proposed it to the legislature...it was HIS he owns it...and so do you own Romney/Pelosi/ScotusCARE and yes Obama signed it...just like I said in my initial post. Lets not forget Romney care is still alive and running in Mass and when romney passed it when gov he was all over the news taking credit

lpast said:

No no NO you cant spin this anyway you want.....romney CREATED IT and proposed it to the legislature...it was HIS he owns it...and so do you own Romney/Pelosi/ScotusCARE and yes Obama signed it...just like I said in my initial post. Lets not forget Romney care is still alive and running in Mass and when romney passed it when gov he was all over the news taking credit

Click to expand...

You arent real big on reading comprehension are you? Deliberate or organic...its just not your strong suit. Show me where I said what Romney 'created' was inappropriate? Ive said since Ive been on this forum there should be health care revisions...at the state level...managed and paid for by the citizens of each state.

VanceMack said:

You arent real big on reading comprehension are you? Deliberate or organic...its just not your strong suit. Show me where I said what Romney 'created' was inappropriate? Ive said since Ive been on this forum there should be health care revisions...at the state level...managed and paid for by the citizens of each state.

Click to expand...

State run health care never works...because its always the same...some will implement some wont so you still have millions with no health care.
Just like the republican govs that wont institute the medicaid provisions of obamacare.

lpast said:

State run health care never works...because its always the same...some will implement some wont so you still have millions with no health care.
Just like the republican govs that wont institute the medicaid provisions of obamacare.

Click to expand...

Federal government programs have put the country 16 trillion in debt and counting and BTW the Romney care you talk about IS such a program. Now...please DO tell us again how Romney actually gets all the credit and love for passing federal Romneycare.

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...

I agree with your first sentence but not your last.

What Obama does is run on a platform of helping the middle class, when in reality his policies create taxes for the middle class and handouts for the rich, the corporations AND the poor.

He's taking from the middle and giving to the outliers. That's what he does. Do the bidding of the rich because they have the money, and hang a carrot for the poor because they have the votes. He's a Republicrat.

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...

Yes, its the only way to keep capitalism from destroying itself as it becomes progressively easier and less work to gain that next dollar and to keep all of the money being sucked up by a few and the rest with nothing to lose and the destabilization of society that would result.

People are only a small bit of desperation away from being savages, no matter what they may tell themselves.

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.