• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
The whole debate about whether redistribution of wealth is good or bad isn't really based on anything in reality. The economic system, the tax code, and all manner of other policies and practices set the rules of the economic game. Those rules can be adjusted to favor one industry, group, individual, class, or company or another to varying degrees. It's like a whole set of dials that can be turned to favor this group or that, but there is no setting on any of the dials that favors everybody equally or is neutral or somehow more natural or anything like that. If you raise interest rates 0.25% that causes money to move from one guy to another. If you leave them as they are, that just causes the money to move to somebody else.

Some people argue that those rules are currently too favorable to the uberwealthy, other people argue that they aren't. Either way, the rules our economy operates under are 'redistributing wealth' no matter what we do. It's not a question of whether or not it's good to have a hand in directing the wealth or not. That's inevitable in any set of rules. The question is whether the current set of rules for how the wealth gets distributed could be improved or not, and if so, how could they be improved.
 
nerv14 said:
why are you so much against wealth redistribution? whats wrong with having something that wasn't directly earned?
Click to expand...

This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond to it.

Voluntary wealth redistribution can be a good thing. Use your your money to give to somebody in need and you have the satisfaction of being a good person while nobody else is required to agree with your choice or contribute to your project. That is freedom and results in a stronger, more satisfying social contract and quality of life.

Government forced wealth redistribution is something quite different. Now the government forces you to give up property that is legally and ethically yours and give it to somebody else who may or may not use it wisely or responsibly or to good advantage. That is a form of slavery that our Founders never intended to be imposed on a free people. Once the government has the power to do that, everything you own or will ever have will be at the disposal of the government. And you are no longer free.

Even if the government restricts such activities just enough so that the people don't rise up in rebellion, it is a hugely corrupting influence on both government and those receiving from the government.
 
nerv14 said:
i agree.

i am just talking about inequality by itself.

I support the free market specifically because it creates more wealth, but we should still acknowledge that in the short run wealth distribution does make people happier.
Click to expand...

You mean it makes some people happier to recieve stolen money?

Who gives a **** if they're "happy" or not?
 
nerv14 said:
why are you so much against wealth redistribution? whats wrong with having something that wasn't directly earned?
Click to expand...

Because it has to be stolen from it's owner.

Duh!

I will not oppose any wealth re-distribution scheme that:

1) Takes only from people promoting the scheme,
2) Leaves the promoters of the scheme below the national poverty level,
3) and forever forbids those promoters the opportunity to receive stolen wealth.

If they can't put their own money where their big lying mouths are, their scams shouldn't be allowed.
 
Catawba said:
That's right, but the language of the Constitution represented the hope for an egalitarian society.
Click to expand...

Right.

Everyone had equal opportunity to rise or sink to the level they deserve.

Can't get more equal than that.

It certainly never was written to impose any kind of nonsensensical equal-income, equal wealth society.

Catawba said:
Exactly and having a very small percentage of the population owning the majority of the wealth is economical tyranny.
Click to expand...

No, it's called "you're not good enough to be rich and you're feeling jealous".

Catawba said:
Glad you weren't around when the Constitution was being written! ;)
Click to expand...

It's clear you weren't around. You don't know what it means.

But I'm here to guide you.
 
Catawba said:
I was with you right up to your last 6 words Owl which are contrary to the Preamble of Constitution which goes to the spirit of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Yes, the very heart of the Constitution:

Secure the Blessings of Liberty.


Which means it can't be authorizing government theft of private incomes, guarantees of minimum incomes, or any of the other socialist claptrap failed freedom stealing notions from the Left.
 
Catawba said:
I don't figure that. My meaning is that the direction offered under the Preamble, among the other things it describes, allows for the creation of programs to help establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and promote the general Welfare of We the People.
Click to expand...

Your meaning is both wrong and not supported historically by the authors of the Constitution.

Catawba said:
I just don't see the conflict between promoting the general welfare, establishing Justice, and liberty for all that you see. And neither have the courts apparently for the last 96 years.
Click to expand...

It's the stealing part included in you people's interpretation of the General Welfare clause, and your assumption that this clause is a blank check for any and ever expansion of Congressional power you desire that's the problem.
 
nerv14 said:
why do you think "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are so important anyway? Seriously, why should that goal be promoted beyond all others?


I just don't think that they are worth not promoting a utilitarian goal.
Click to expand...

Here's a notion:

The people that founded the country didn't believe it was the government's job to plan people's lives or judge how they're lived, outside of obvious criminal behaviors.

That's what "freedom" is about.

It's freedom from government interference.

There's no promise that the government was going to pick up someone who falls down, not in the least.
 
nerv14 said:
why are you so much against wealth redistribution? whats wrong with having something that wasn't directly earned?
Click to expand...

Why should I give up what I earn because you are to lazy to work and you expect others to support you?
 
ptif219 said:
Why should I give up what I earn because you are to lazy to work and you expect others to support you?
Click to expand...

That's a very loaded question. And a strawman... no one wants that scenario.

The reality of it is is that there is not the opportunity or the meritocracy some would have you believe in our current political economy.
 
Z3n said:
That's a very loaded question. And a strawman... no one wants that scenario.

The reality of it is is that there is not the opportunity or the meritocracy some would have you believe in our current political economy.
Click to expand...

Really it seems that nerv 14 does
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Right.

Everyone had equal opportunity to rise or sink to the level they deserve.
Click to expand...

The top 20% of the population own 80% of the wealth.
To be equitable, or as the Constitution states, to establish justice, they should pay 80% of the taxes.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, the very heart of the Constitution:

Secure the Blessings of Liberty.


Which means it can't be authorizing government theft of private incomes, guarantees of minimum incomes, or any of the other socialist claptrap failed freedom stealing notions from the Left.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation, not that of the courts for the last 96 years.
 
AlbqOwl said:
This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond to it.

Voluntary wealth redistribution can be a good thing. Use your your money to give to somebody in need and you have the satisfaction of being a good person while nobody else is required to agree with your choice or contribute to your project. That is freedom and results in a stronger, more satisfying social contract and quality of life.

Government forced wealth redistribution is something quite different. Now the government forces you to give up property that is legally and ethically yours and give it to somebody else who may or may not use it wisely or responsibly or to good advantage. That is a form of slavery that our Founders never intended to be imposed on a free people. Once the government has the power to do that, everything you own or will ever have will be at the disposal of the government. And you are no longer free.

Even if the government restricts such activities just enough so that the people don't rise up in rebellion, it is a hugely corrupting influence on both government and those receiving from the government.
Click to expand...

Just because the rich are taxed 5% more then the middle class, that doesn't make them slaves.

The fact that a government can have different tax rates for different people doesn't mean that some individuals will be taxed at 100% (making them complete slaves). so I do not see a problem with progressive taxation.

I agree that wealth distribution causes people to sometimes spend money for negative ends, and can cause corruption and dependence. However, not all wealth distribution does that.

There can still be a limited government with small amounts of wealth distribution, for things like public education and unemployment insurance. It doesn't need to go overboard just because a small amount of progressive taxation is used.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean it makes some people happier to recieve stolen money?

Who gives a **** if they're "happy" or not?
Click to expand...
because promoting happiness (among other things) is my goal of society :p you apparently have a different goal. im a utilitarian
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because it has to be stolen from it's owner.

Duh!

I will not oppose any wealth re-distribution scheme that:

1) Takes only from people promoting the scheme,
2) Leaves the promoters of the scheme below the national poverty level,
3) and forever forbids those promoters the opportunity to receive stolen wealth.

If they can't put their own money where their big lying mouths are, their scams shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

that sounds like voluntary donations, that doesn't work well enough to generate the revenue to help the poor.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Here's a notion:

The people that founded the country didn't believe it was the government's job to plan people's lives or judge how they're lived, outside of obvious criminal behaviors.

That's what "freedom" is about.

It's freedom from government interference.

There's no promise that the government was going to pick up someone who falls down, not in the least.
Click to expand...
But why is freedom from government interference so important?

If that is the most basic assumption you have about government, then so be it.

But I think promoting a certain goal, like freedom of people, does not always involve the government staying out of people's lives.

For instance, someone only has the freedom to learn how to play a piano if they either earn the money to buy a piano or they are given a piano from someone else.

In this scheme, if the government gives someone money to buy a piano, then they are actually more free with the government involvement.


But instead of using my example above as a rationale for completely socialism, we should use my example for freedom and your example of government staying out of people's lives to try and find a good equilibrium between the two.


So instead of the government taxing the rich to buy me a piano, the government can use a flat tax to pay for a cultural center with a piano that poor people can practice on. That is still wealth distribution, because the poor would use the cultural center more then the rich, but I think it maximizes freedom for the most amount of people, so should be promoted.

What is ethically wrong with this wealth distribution?

ptif219 said:
Why should I give up what I earn because you are to lazy to work and you expect others to support you?
Click to expand...

see above.
 
ptif219 said:
Really it seems that nerv 14 does
Click to expand...
true that

I mostly agree with that, but I support limits on how long people can be on unemployment insurance.

but then again, no matter how many times someone gets into an accident and trusts the government will pay for their life saving operation... so the lazy should be able to feed off the productive, to a degree
 
nerv14 said:
true that

I mostly agree with that, but I support limits on how long people can be on unemployment insurance.

but then again, no matter how many times someone gets into an accident and trusts the government will pay for their life saving operation... so the lazy should be able to feed off the productive, to a degree
Click to expand...

Why? What gives the government the right to take my money to support those to lazy to work?
 
ptif219 said:
Why? What gives the government the right to take my money to support those to lazy to work?
Click to expand...

utilitarian goals. promoting happiness and maximizing a certain type of freedom
 
ptif219 said:
Not the governments job.
Click to expand...

as I said before, I don't see why if the government can make life better for us, then the government still shouldn't do it.

Its one thing to say that the government creates more problems then it fixes, but then you should still support the government to fix the few problems that it can fix.
 
nerv14 said:
as I said before, I don't see why if the government can make life better for us, then the government still shouldn't do it.

Its one thing to say that the government creates more problems then it fixes, but then you should still support the government to fix the few problems that it can fix.
Click to expand...

Not by stealing my money to give to you
 
nerv14 said:
as I said before, I don't see why if the government can make life better for us, then the government still shouldn't do it.

Its one thing to say that the government creates more problems then it fixes, but then you should still support the government to fix the few problems that it can fix.
Click to expand...

The government cannot make life better for us. The government has no property, no assets, and no means of generating either wealth or prosperity. Sure the government can improve the situation of one citizen, but it can do that only by disadvantaging another. And eventually enriching some at the expense of others will cause that well to run dry. It always has. I think it was Maggie Thatcher who once said that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money.

What government as our Founders envisioned it is supposed to do is to secure our rights and put sufficient laws and regulation into place to keep us from doing violence to each other without consequence, and then leave us alone to live our lives.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The government cannot make life better for us.
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans in this country that reelected FDR 3 times would very much disagree with you.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The government cannot make life better for us. The government has no property, no assets, and no means of generating either wealth or prosperity. Sure the government can improve the situation of one citizen, but it can do that only by disadvantaging another. And eventually enriching some at the expense of others will cause that well to run dry. It always has. I think it was Maggie Thatcher who once said that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money.

What government as our Founders envisioned it is supposed to do is to secure our rights and put sufficient laws and regulation into place to keep us from doing violence to each other without consequence, and then leave us alone to live our lives.
Click to expand...

I think the interstate highway system has improved most peoples lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom