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

Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately more.
An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to get to
their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes from the
better off.


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

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

"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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately more.
An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to get to
their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes from the
better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing it
in another's.

Max

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks lately
to any homeless. Have you?

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use the
infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it proportionately
more. An example is the long commute the less well off have to endure to
get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for these things comes
from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and placing
it in another's.

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.


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

"DSK" 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.


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?

Nice obfuscation, Doug. But you and Jon know very well that's not what the
discussion is about. It's about taking money (um, that would be *personal*
wealth) from individuals and giving it to others (personal entitlements).
It's a liberal concept fostered by welfare and other BS entitlement
programs. Socialism is a rather succinct example of such redistribution of
wealth. And you liberals just love your socialist ideology, doncha.

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?

Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the very
highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative. Talk about
blatant stupidity. Where exactly does the marginal tax rate obviate the
desire to excel and accumulate wealth? Of course you left-wing numbskulls
aren't concerned about such things, are ya.


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.

Only insipid, Kool Aid-drinking, Yugo-driving, liberal,
we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do fascisti such as yourself would
obfuscate the issue with such pseudo-intellectual prattle. Of course you
have to do so, because you have no valid argument to the contrary.
Redistribution of personal wealth is a concept you leftists love, but can't
support by any logical means. If you were twice as bright as you think you
are, you'd still be stupid.

Max

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

"DSK" 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.


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?

Nice obfuscation, Doug. But you and Jon know very well that's not what
the discussion is about. It's about taking money (um, that would be
*personal* wealth) from individuals and giving it to others (personal
entitlements). It's a liberal concept fostered by welfare and other BS
entitlement programs. Socialism is a rather succinct example of such
redistribution of wealth. And you liberals just love your socialist
ideology, doncha.

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should they
be allowed to starve to death on the streets? What about the unwed mother
who is 17, because she didn't have access to information about birth
control. What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute
herself to get food for herself and her child?

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?

Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the
very highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative. Talk
about blatant stupidity. Where exactly does the marginal tax rate obviate
the desire to excel and accumulate wealth? Of course you left-wing
numbskulls aren't concerned about such things, are ya.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying something
like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent my belief and
seems pretty stupid. You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing
numbskull comment, which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I
don't think I've called you a right-wingnut lately.


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.

Only insipid, Kool Aid-drinking, Yugo-driving, liberal,
we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do fascisti such as yourself would
obfuscate the issue with such pseudo-intellectual prattle. Of course you
have to do so, because you have no valid argument to the contrary.
Redistribution of personal wealth is a concept you leftists love, but
can't support by any logical means. If you were twice as bright as you
think you are, you'd still be stupid.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the space
program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the street, and
all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why are you only
talking about the services you don't like?