"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:08:34 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I find it amusing that you and the left wing are the first to condemn
Bush
for his role with big oil, but turn around and advocate $5 per gallon
gasoline.

That's pretty much of a piece with their other positions--more taxes so
gumming bureaucrats can redistribute money from those who earned it to
those
who didn't.


Yes, that's exactly what I want. It would, for one thing, reduce crime. It
would be far cheaper to invest in education and give people a handout than
put them in prison after they've victimized people.

You've done the math on that?


I know this upsets you. I'm sorry.

More than upsetting, it is simply wrong. When one's wealth is taken away
and given to others to equalize the relative wealth of a society, the
stimulus for self-improvement and personal growth is removed. Ultimately no
one works hard enough to accumulate enough wealth for the process of
redistribution, leading to universal poverty. See: Soviet Russia and Cuba
for examples.

Max

Sorry, but we already do that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:08:34 GMT, "Maxprop"
said:

I find it amusing that you and the left wing are the first to condemn
Bush
for his role with big oil, but turn around and advocate $5 per gallon
gasoline.

That's pretty much of a piece with their other positions--more taxes so
gumming bureaucrats can redistribute money from those who earned it to
those
who didn't.


Yes, that's exactly what I want. It would, for one thing, reduce crime.
It would be far cheaper to invest in education and give people a handout
than put them in prison after they've victimized people.

You've done the math on that?


I know this upsets you. I'm sorry.

More than upsetting, it is simply wrong. When one's wealth is taken away
and given to others to equalize the relative wealth of a society, the
stimulus for self-improvement and personal growth is removed. Ultimately
no one works hard enough to accumulate enough wealth for the process of
redistribution, leading to universal poverty. See: Soviet Russia and
Cuba for examples.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but we already do that.

Yes, we do, and it's still wrong.

Max

Do you think we should stop doing it? Careful, it's a trick question. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but we already do that.

Yes, we do, and it's still wrong.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Do you think we should stop doing it? Careful, it's a trick question. :-)

Okay, I'll bite. Explain, please.

Max

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. If we take more money from someone who is
more well-off than someone who is less well-off either by percentage or in a
flat-tax fashion, we're basically redistributing the cost of these vital
services. Now, I think it's worth talking about if this is viable. I don't
think it is as a step toward a more fair system of taxation.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Do you think we should stop doing it? Careful, it's a trick question. :-)

Okay, I'll bite. Explain, please.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

If we take more money from someone who is more well-off than someone who is
less well-off either by percentage

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.

or in a flat-tax fashion, we're basically redistributing the cost of these
vital services. Now, I think it's worth talking about if this is viable. I
don't think it is as a step toward a more fair system of taxation.

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 you are right in that taxation is the means for such
redistribution.

Max