• 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!

Redistribution of Wealth.

Is Redistribution of Wealth a valid exercise of Government authority?


  • Total voters
    41
Most of our redistribution of wealth in the United States is not not from rich to poor, but rather from young to old and geographic transfers from wealthy urban areas to poorer rural areas.
 
Fantastic....let's base the USofA's entire governmental and social infrastructure on THE BIBLE. :roll::roll::roll::lamo

You might learn something about economics if you'd ever read it, like NOT RUNNING UP DEBT LIKE A BONE-HEADED LIBERAL OR RINO. Duh.
 
The OP left everything so wide open to interpretation I have no idea what's being discussed and what ins't.

You seem to have thought along a different path than I did as to what's being discussed here.

Income taxes are both federal, state, city, county......which pay for things like roads, schools, police, fire & rescue.......

Personally, I take 'redistribution of wealth' to mean in addition to America's present welfare programs and infrastructure.

Basically just take substantial, additional monies from the rich and give it - through various means - to the poor/middle class.
 
An often mentioned subject that I'd like to gauge DP's general opinion on. Is redistribution of wealth a valid exercise of government authority?
I voted "YES," and it is because it is the duty of the gov't to create employment in areas of benefit to all. The "Service" economy is gamed to benefit the wealthy and sacrifice those without clout. It is time for gov't sponsored work programs that develop labor intensive industries and Ronal Reagan's embrace and encouragement of the "Service" economy should be acknowledged for what it was and that is, The greatest gov't mistake in history. That culpability must be shared with Bush !, Clinton, Bush-the first torturer, and Obama. but the original Teflon doofus gets the lion's share of blame. I am not saying, tax the rich and give it to the poor, I am encouraging a gov't policy that creates jobs, not billionaires. Screw those big banks.
 
An often mentioned subject that I'd like to gauge DP's general opinion on. Is redistribution of wealth a valid exercise of government authority?
Personally, the term "redistribution of wealth" is one I've always found very offensive - and for reasons as you've worded it - as an "exercise of government authority."

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.
So things like education, roads, hospitals, sewers, clean water to drink, police fire and rescue.......those things should only be available to the people who can afford it? The rich?
I don't think he said, or even implied that. Roads, sewers, clean water, fire/police are what he was talking about for all are legitimate and explicitly sanctioned functions of government.

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.
 
"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
 
NO! Redistribution of wealth kills equality! :stars:
 
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.
 
If their spiritually-challenged mothers don't kill them in the womb first.

Duck and dodge the core issue all you want, it doesn't make you less wrong.
 
Duck and dodge the core issue all you want, it doesn't make you less wrong.

Hey, the issue is the accumulated sins of a culture over time resulting in the destruction of that evil culture. Left alone, the parents grow the children up and train them in their evil ways, resulting in more carnage. God stops the madness, and the innocent babies and others go to heaven, while the rest go down to perdition.

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
 
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.


LOL, I love this argument.

pay off the poor or they will revolt

I say let them revolt

remember what a Brit (Hilaire Belloc) once said in response to someone saying the "Natives" might revolt

No matter what happens, we have got
the Maxim gun, and they have not.
 
If we can entertain the thought of redistributing wealth from the rich to the rest, why not also entertain the thought of redistributing the wealth of the rest to the rich where it will be better managed? How about a progressive tax that taxes the lazy, fat, stupid, mediocre and irrelevant the most and those that create wealth the least? Doesn't that sound like the beginning of a great society of capable people who get things done instead of sitting around waiting for their government check to arrive?
 
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.

Revolution? For what...iPad's with more memory?

Americans already get enough food, shelter and medical care to easily survive by sitting on their butts and doing absolutely nothing.

You honestly think they are going to risk that AND their lives just so their iPad's can have retina display's?

I highly doubt it.


That's probably why the government does what they are doing...implement programs (like QE) that benefit the rich while drastically raising social programs (like Obamacare) to appease everyone else.
Their rich, Wall St. buddies get richer and the masses get more and more dependent on the government. Win-win for them.

Lose-lose for everyone else...except the mega rich, of course.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what kind of society we wish to have. If democratic-capitalist then yes. When the People do not own the means of production, then yes, wealth (mostly defined as money) redistribution is necessary.

If the owners of industry also own all the money then how can capitalism function? The only result of that can be economic stagnation.

If you wish for society to revert to a more plutocratic rule, then no, wealth distribution is completely unnecessary. This is because a plutocratic society only requires a lower class which functions as menial labor and de facto serfdom. Whoever has the money makes the rules.

For a functional democracy, the People must at least have a moderate share of the wealth for purchasing power, since they typically do not have much political power beyond the vote.
 
If you dont think redistribution of wealth is isnt essential or a natural authority of government then you probably dont think any government is natural since the 1700's...
 
LOL, I love this argument.

pay off the poor or they will revolt

I say let them revolt

remember what a Brit (Hilaire Belloc) once said in response to someone saying the "Natives" might revolt

No matter what happens, we have got
the Maxim gun, and they have not.

judging from the subsidies they receive already most of them would be too damn lazy to to get up off the couch and go to the door and scream in definace much less a physical revolt.
 
Back
Top Bottom