Another poster asked what the term meant. I know what it means - driving it is the philosophy of a few that believes they have the authority, the right to take from some in order to give it to others (redistribute) - and that for the expressed purpose of achieving "equality" in wealth, equality in outcome.
I am adamantly opposed to this philosophy for it presumes:
1) The government has such a right, that such a right has been explicitly conferred on it. It hasn't. Nowhere in our Constitution will you find such a right explicitly or implicitly mentioned or listed.
2) The government has such an ability, such that it can equitably take from some and give it to others. No one has such abilities.
Government has neither the right nor the ability to equitably "redistribute" anything.
A few in government however may possess the raw power to try, that is, to exercise the power it takes to forcibly take from some to [ostensibly] give it to others. Such an abuse of power however is inimical to the longevity of a free society. What inevitably happens is that the few in government with the power to forcibly take from some will do just that - but keep [the vast bulk of] it. Maneuvering under the banner of "equality for all" their machinations always results in a shift of wealth... to them, who end up being the only possessors of both wealth and power, and always at the expense of everyone else.
Moreover, none of them have anything to do with the philosophy of redistributing wealth; nor can I imagine anyone believing roads, sewers, clean water, police/fire etc. are remotely associated with the philosophy of reducing inequalities in society.
Taxation is for the expressed purpose of funding legitimate government functions, such as the above and are therefore necessary.
Even certain "social safety nets" - while I agree some are necessary - are nevertheless unrelated to the philosophy of "redistribution of wealth" except perhaps as an excuse used by the few to sell the unsanctioned use of force they're seeking.
Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." - Ronald Reagan
Redistribution of wealth is a necessary evil. The real question is; how much? IMHO, the current amount is approximately right. I don't think it should be increased. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for some people to have more than others. Some people won't be satisfied until we're all equally broke.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
NO! Redistribution of wealth kills equality!
I think it would be a necessary step to prevent another French Revolution from occurring, to say the least. I guess the first option fits me best.
"Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
As for the liberal-minded,
"Liberal ideology leads [liberals] to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." “There is no such thing as a thoughtful liberal.” Sayet added that liberals are attracted to intellectualism, but “their beliefs have been stunted at the age of five. And this is not an exaggeration.” - Evan Sayet
"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown