Whats Wrong with Redistribution of Wealth?

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

  1. #81 Funk-DII, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    That's why its an ideal and not reality.  Ideals usually are fantasy.  I agree. 
    Taxation and redistribution of wealth are two different topics that can overlap.  I am against redistribution of wealth, but I am for taxes. 

  2. Some form of guidance will always be needed in order for a large population to be able to coexist.
    The ultimate form of government and guidance, is one where no one has illegitimate authority over another, and where force is not a means to an end.
  3. #83 Massholes, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    They're somewhat different but I see taxation as just another form of redistributing wealth. We are people in society using services (forced on us I might add without freedom to compete and unsubscribe) and some of us are paying less than others and some not at all.
    And then they use taxes for the most destructive and disgusting things such as war which seems worse than redistribution.
    I'm against all taxation seeing as its yet another word with less of a negative connotation which should be accurately described as extortion. People should choose voluntarily what services to buy. The free market can organize itself better than any central planner can.
    I'm open to what makes the most sense. Its how I got to the position I'm currently at.
    Not giving a fuck > Republican > Independent > Libertarian (minarchist) > i'm currently working on that but anarcho capitalist seems to make the most sense and seems to be consistent in philosophy. It seems to have the best consequences.
  5. Dammit, I leave for a few min and all my points have been ninja'd! Damn you masshole and goober!
  6. #86 Mutatis, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    To me, taxes are a necessary evil. No one *likes* taxes, but we need them. What's the alternative? No more taxes, and just have private corporations do all the stuff government does? And they're just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts, huh? Instead of the government getting our money, it'd be them getting our money. Shit, just imagine the tolls on roads.

    Really, I'm curious--what's the alternative? If there're no taxes, there's no government. Do you think a society can function without a government? Start thinking about everything the government does, and I don't see how.

    As for the discussion getting derailed onto taxes, I don't see how the idea of wealth redistribution and taxes are at all far from each other.
  7. #87 Massholes, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    I don't buy into the whole necessarily evil nonsense. I'd rather think outside the box
    Are you aware of the results of monopolies? Look at the police. No accountability when your "customers" are forced to fund them no matter what. Unlike a private business with an actual contract and the ability to unsubscribe and effectively sue if they accidentally kill someone (like they seem to frequently do as seen on copblock) which would come out of their income instead of resolving it with stolen tax payer money.
    Private companies don't need to do it on the kindness of their hearts. Just like they don't produce iphones from the kindness of their heart. Its to provide a services for income.
    No one is going to build a road and charge a toll that no one is going to pay. That wouldn't be a smart investment at all. Think of it economically instead of wild assumptions.
    We have no freedom to compete. I wonder why?
    Look at lysander spooner and what he did with mail.
  8. A business will start up whenever there is enough demand from the people, so things like roads, schools, security, food inspectors, cars etc, are all, and can all, exist without a government. I would much rather give a business my money, because they have to earn it, a government simply takes my money, regardless of the quality they provide, and more often than not, at the expense of others.
    A business can also not put arbitrary prices on products and services, they must adjust them to fit the demographics and demands of the customers they are servicing. Some could be more expensive, others wouldnt, others would be in the middle, same goes for quality. Its whatever the customers demand.
    I believe a society can function, as long as it respects the property of others, doesnt use force, and voluntary agreements are placed above all else. If that is a government, then so be it.
  9. Redistribution of wealth makes sense if the person in charge of it can be trusted.
  10. I guess it just depends on your beliefs and personal philosophy. I guess it also comes down to who you trust. We've seen the results of free markets running wild with no regulation. If left to their own machinations, corporations would rape is for every cent they could. They'd have the highest possible tolls, the highest possible prices, no where would be without an advertisement. Every decision made would be in the interest of profit. That's not how the government works, at least not completely.

    Between a cooperation and a government, I'll let the government steal my money over a corporation any day.
    What if government is run by corporate interests?
    That could never happen ;)
    Do you choose to ignore what people say?
    A free market hasnt existed, so could you point me in this direction of where you have seen it?
    And as already explained, a business cant put arbitrary prices on things. So again, do you choose to ignore economics?
    Profit is not a bad thing, its what has driven men to make this computer and internet we are now talking over, its what allows a company to expand, hire more workers, give out better salaries and benefits.
    I would take voluntarism over authoritarianism every single time.
    I what sense is he "wealthy", is wealthy to you mean he could live an "upper middle class" lifestyle and not worry about the bills? Or is wealthy mean one could not spend the money on consumables in a single lifetime even if they tried. The multiplier from 3 million to 30, to 300, to a billion is fucking huge. So if Colbert is "wealthy" what is buffet? What is Zuckerburg?
  15. #95 AugustWest, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    Colbert makes $6mil per year.. and is worth $45 million that's wealthy to anyone.
    if you asked buffet if 6 mil per year is considered wealthy he would probably say yes.
    $6mil is not an upper middle class salary,
    the others you mention are also wealthy.. considerably wealthy, and good for them.. i hope they get to keep every penny of the money they they earned.
    What about poor people, should their kids not get to  go to school because they can't afford it....made poor because there was no benefits coverage during Mat leave and the mother wasn't hire back so pops left her. And says, fuck that I'm not paying for the kid...who's gunna force me...
    bud there is a million holes in your idealized example...believe me your suggestion was tried first. The first tribe/civilization/clan/what have you, of peeps didn't just say....hey lets start taxing people cause were bigger...your proposition is nonsense. Democracy & taxing is the the best we have after a few thousand years of development. Go back into the woods & set up your booby traps/
  17. I work hard for my money, anyone can make money if they try. No one will ever force me to give money to other people that didn't work for it. Seriously FUCK that and FUCK OP for being such a lazy fuck. Redistribution of wealth is something some broke motherfucker came up with. When it comes to being forced to give money to everyone else. That is where the line is drawn and revolts shall start

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Grasscity Forum mobile app
  18. #98 PeterParker, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2014
    The # 10 most expensive Yatch in the world is 200 million.....Like I said I don't think Colbert is in the "wealthy" category if we are talking about all people....just in N.America.
    Yes Colbert is of the income that he can keep all he has earned after taxes....the story & morals change when we are talking multiples of billions.  millionaires...pyshh
    Ok so no economic examples, just anecdotes. I really cant tell if you're serious or not.
    Poor kids go to school now, there are all kinds of products (wal-mart, fast food, etc) which cater to the poor.
    Yes, a group of people with power came together and starting exploiting people, know as governments. Monarchs, feudal, etc, same concept.
    Democracy is mob rule and taxation is theft, so if thats the best, then humans shouldnt settle.
    And oh look, the "If you dont like it, leave" argument.
    I hope that you can see how you didnt make a rational argument at all, and I dont think you addressed anything I said.
  20. A billionaire pays well over 10x what you do in taxes.

Share This Page