Whats Wrong with Redistribution of Wealth?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mutatis, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. It's seems the very phrase "redistribution of wealth" has become something so fraught with negative connotations, not even those who support it want to say it. Last week Paul Krugman was on The Colbert Report, and Colbert kept trying to say he supported redistribution of wealth (which he essentially does), and he refused to say it. Why? Why do left-wing ideologies become something not to be spoken of? "Liberal" is now treated practically as a bad word.

    I agree with the idea of redistribution of wealth. I believe the rich should be forced to contribute more to society. End of story.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Forced? That's really moral of you. The only reason the rich are so damn rich in America is because of government aided corporatism. Those rich bastards at the top bribe the government to keep them that way. You think for a moment they would go against the rich? HA!

    Even if this were not the facts, who do you think you are too force anyone to pay into anything?
    • Like Like x 2
    Then you are nothing more than a common thief, who wants to use the power of the state to plunder from others. End of story.
    It would be hilarious if the "rich" went all Atlas Shrugged and left. Who would you steal form then?
    • Like Like x 4
  4. I take it that providing hundreds of jobs isn't a contribution in your eyes?
    Would it be okay if I took some of your money by force and donated it to charities of my choosing?
  5. Nothing wrong with taxation.
  6. #6 240sxLover, Feb 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2014
    I don't think there's any proper way to talk about this, but yeah man. There's some extremely rich ass people in the world who don't do a lick of good in helping humanity or their societies. I think our income tax should simply reflect that some people can't contribute as much as others. If a billionaire payed 10 times the taxes I did, he might have to sell one of his 12 ferarris. Big deal.
    And why for god's sake is there a sales tax on food; I NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE GOVERNMENT, ARE YOU RETARDED??? I end up having to buy the cheapest, shittiest food products, that usually come out looking the exact same as they went in. Fuckin a.
    • Like Like x 1
    What about 100% taxation?
  8. Meh.
    Is that a no?
    Thing is, taxation isn't even a left wing ideology.  The rightwing media has managed to redefine the center, so that even a  proposed modest tax hike is framed as radical socialism.
    • Like Like x 3
  11. That's a meh.
    What does meh mean?
  13. Lets imagine wealth as your fridge.

    I come into your house and clean out two thirds of your food to give to the neighbors on each side of you.

    You dont like it, fuckoff. End of story.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. #14 JohnnyWeedSeed, Feb 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2014
    So if I run up in your house and take your tv while leaving you a couple gift cards for McDonald's you would be cool with that as long as I call it a tax?
    If you don't like it you don't have to live next to me. You can just leave.
  15. You must know what it means, you've used it before.
    This is why the libertarian movement won't amount to a hill of beans.
  17. #17 Mutatis, Feb 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2014
    Forced = taxes. I don't give a fuck if the rich like being taxed or not. Fuck the rich.

    I hate the argument that rich people provide jobs. They provide jobs to make more money, not out of some charitable kindness.

    Also, "meh" usually means an aloof dismissal of an idea, whole still sort of accepting but at the same time implying that the "meh" sayer doesn't care enough to even comment on it. Like if someone asks me if I like a genre of music and I say "meh," I'd think the meaning would be clear.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. hyperbole, misconception, greed, brainwashing....this tread is so full of emotion, reason has no purpose.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Conservatives are against this idea because they are the ones who have to pay. Liberals approve of the idea because they are the ones who get paid. It also encourages people to not work. If you end up with the same $$$ that a person who did not work received, what is the point?
    Too many people feel entitled to be taken care of without any expenditure on their part
    You sound envious
    • Like Like x 4
  20. Since when does the idea of helping people out mean they're being "taken care of"?

Share This Page