Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like idiots.
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
How much do you contribute to charity? What is stopping you from going and redistributing your own personal money to said people?
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind.
The closest we can get to anything.
Quote:
It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need.
I don't see that. Federal government wasn't put as a token governing body, and especially since the adoption of US Constitution (which strengthened federal government's role).
As for usurping the role of churches and charities, would you provide a real world example to discuss?
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the people in need. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like selfish, greedy idiots.
In other words, punish success and reward failure. The government has no business being in the business of redistributing wealth, no matter the reasoning or the level. Once they get their foot in the door and are allowed to punish millionaires (class warfare), what's left of the middle class will become fair game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Some conservatives believe there's nothing wrong in practice to tax the working class in order to help the wealthy.
You're confusing tax loopholes with corporate tax, and probably capital gains with working income. As it is, the US has the highest corporate tax rate, which is driving businesses overseas. High corporate tax rates are an additional tax on the middle class. It keeps unemployment high, incomes down, and has ballooned welfare expenditures to record highs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38
How much do you contribute to charity? What is stopping you from going and redistributing your own personal money to said people?
Exactly right. Americans are the most generous givers in the world. Not because the government takes and redistributes our wealth, but in spite of it. We should be able to decide for ourselves what we, as individuals, want to give and who we want to give it to.
And you are from California, the most deficit riddled , on the brink of bankruptcy state in the whole nation. Apparently alot of others think as you do as well!
I think California taxes and spends far too much as well. I vote a straight GOP ticket and have never voted for a tax increase in my life. You're missing my point. Saying "California spends too much" is not the same as saying "redistribution of wealth is wrong". It's not that California redistributes wealth, it's that California spends more than it should. Why is this so hard to understand?
" I'm in favor of redistribution of wealth
There's nothing wrong in principle with government taxing the rich to help the poor. There, I said it. And I'm really getting sick and tired of Republicans making "redistribution of wealth" the cornerstone of their opposition to Obama and the Democrats. True, government taxes too much and spends too much, no question - but the problem is one of degree and not of kind. It's also a problem of the federal government usurping the role of churches, charities, and state/local governments much closer to the actual need on the ground. These distinctions are important. When you rail against "redistribution of wealth" as though it's something intrinsically evil, you just sound like idiots."
___________________________________
First, let me say I CAN'T disagree with your second statement on government taxes too much and spends to much. Also the local effect vs federal government spendind. The princple that the rich are to pay for the poor VIA government force is the princple I think we are speaking of. The corner stone of good government is to protect liberty not to identify classes of people to single out based on voting blocks. Besides if you believe in this who does the middle class support? Taxes are to pay for the basic functions of government, law, order, military and promoting and protecting liberty. As per the constitution this is really its only FUNCTION. No corporate or social welfare these programs came from progressives who believed its was the GOVERNMENTS DUTY to take care of these functions. Only bringing about divison party lines and most of all brainwashed citizens dependent on government for everything.
Yep the IRS is just a band of merry thieves looking out for us little guys
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
