heh... ok... well, if we take away all redistribution of wealth, for
example, we would basically eliminate the super-highways in the US. We
would eliminate the military, as well.


Maxprop wrote:
I don't consider infrastructure and military expenses to be "redistribution
of wealth." In fact, I've never heard it referred to in that manner.


You keep saying you got good grades in Econ 101, then you
say ignorant BS like this.

When the gov't takes money away from citizens and/or
business, and then spends that money on things that the
citizens and/or businesses would not have (or *could* not
have) bought on their own, then that is "redistribution of
wealth."

In other words, ALL governments redistribute wealth. It is
essential to the function of government. The only question
is, does this or that particular gov't do so wisely or unwisely?



The odds are that the well-off person is more likely to use infrastructure
to a greater degree than those who aren't so well-off.


Exactly... which is one reason (among many) that progressive
taxation of income is inherently fair. The only question is,
how steep should we make the curve?




Redistribution of wealth, as I was referring to it, is welfare, social
security, and the other entitlements programs such as WIC, Medicaid, etc.

Of course, because you use it as a buzz-word for rallying
goose-stepping igno-fascists such as yourself. This has
nothing to do with what it really means.

DSK