Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Weath Redistribution Isn't Noble; It's Theft

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:20:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Statists like to tout their confiscation and redistribution schemes as noble and caring, but we should ask if theft is ever noble or caring.

Those who support wealth redistribution are generally portrayed as noble, selfless, and caring; those who oppose it are heartless, selfish misers who want society to crumble.

But shouldn't we define what is noble and caring by what one is willing to do voluntarily with their own time and effort - not by the extent to which one is comfortable using a third party to take someone else's property (the product of their time and effort) and use it for a cause they identify with? To illustrate why, see the following two quotes by economist Walter E. Williams:

"Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."

"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income."

As Murray Rothbard (For A New Liberty, 1973, p. 55) once asked: Is there a way to define taxation so as to morally differentiate it from robbery?
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 12:08:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:20:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
Statists like to tout their confiscation and redistribution schemes as noble and caring, but we should ask if theft is ever noble or caring.

Those who support wealth redistribution are generally portrayed as noble, selfless, and caring; those who oppose it are heartless, selfish misers who want society to crumble.

But shouldn't we define what is noble and caring by what one is willing to do voluntarily with their own time and effort - not by the extent to which one is comfortable using a third party to take someone else's property (the product of their time and effort) and use it for a cause they identify with? To illustrate why, see the following two quotes by economist Walter E. Williams:

"Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."

"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income."

As Murray Rothbard (For A New Liberty, 1973, p. 55) once asked: Is there a way to define taxation so as to morally differentiate it from robbery?

Good post. I mostly agree with you, though I have no problem with taxation as long as the money collected is used to support the necessary and proper functions of the federal government. However using taxation to redistribute wealth is never a proper function of our government anyway.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 12:17:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
They often claim a robbin hood persona, but in reality it's more like prince John. The poor was poor because the rich rulers/politicians taxed them till to that point. Redistribution of wealth aims to reduce the wealth of a group of people through excessive taxation, in order to even out the wealth of the populace.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 1:27:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wealth redistribution never works anyhow, because, those good at making money are just going to get their money back. And, because you've put constraints on those companies to even out losses, you're now discouraging competition, and you are basically telling companies to consider the consumer enemy number one.

That's why you see all of these gigantic mergers, why you see very little serious competition anymore.

Remember the old days?
Nintendo & Sega
K Mart & Walmart
McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys

You rarely see companies in the same fields compete anymore. You see them pretty much avoid one another, when, back then, you would see all kinds of ads and campaigns against one another. It was like watching a suit-and-tie cockfight at times!

That's not the way capitalism is supposed to work.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?

That's not redistribution, they are earning that salary, it's not just being handed to them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:57:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?

That's not redistribution, they are earning that salary, it's not just being handed to them.

Taxation is redistribution, the income from person A is going to person B. Taxation brings about a different distribution of income, do you agree?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:40:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:01:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:57:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?

That's not redistribution, they are earning that salary, it's not just being handed to them.

Taxation is redistribution, the income from person A is going to person B. Taxation brings about a different distribution of income, do you agree?

Redistribution of wealth means to reorganize the distribution of wealth.
If one taxes the rich to fund programs for the poor, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes the poor to fund programs for the rich, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes Florida to build a bridge in NH they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes both the rich and the poor to pay a police officer a wage for protecting both the rich and the poor, they are not redistributing wealth.

Redistribution of wealth has to do with appropriation not taxation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

A legitimate tax is an equal tax on everybody, with equal benefit to everybody. Anything else isn't an equal tax.

Considering that the top 1% pay a rate that is 17 times greater than the bottom 50%, I don't think we can justify moving their taxes higher.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:49:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:40:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:01:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:57:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?

That's not redistribution, they are earning that salary, it's not just being handed to them.

Taxation is redistribution, the income from person A is going to person B. Taxation brings about a different distribution of income, do you agree?

Redistribution of wealth means to reorganize the distribution of wealth.
If one taxes the rich to fund programs for the poor, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes the poor to fund programs for the rich, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes Florida to build a bridge in NH they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes both the rich and the poor to pay a police officer a wage for protecting both the rich and the poor, they are not redistributing wealth.

Redistribution of wealth has to do with appropriation not taxation.

But the money is being appropriated. The poor don't pay income taxes, they pay a much smaller % than the rich - it's primarily the top 20% who are paying for police forces. Money derived from taxation is appropriated to certain causes resulting in a redistribution of income in contrast to how it would be without this mechanism. In other words, there's a clear difference in the distribution of incomes between a society that publicly pays for police forces and firemen and one that does not because the money needs to come from somewhere - the taxpayer, nor does it really matter who exactly is paying for it. This will probably be my last post on the subject.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:50:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

Depends on the type of tax. Many forms of taxation are harmful. Taxes should be simple, because a complex tax code hurts the economy. Taxes should not deter employment, or investment, and taxes should not be uses as an intentional deterant.
Taxes on profit should be flat, while property taxes should be progressive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:49:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:40:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:01:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:57:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:23:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:45:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 6:14:25 PM, Contra wrote:
Ok, all taxes are a form of redistribution.

And many of the current taxes do massively redistribute wealth, towards the top. Also known as corporate welfare. Tax loopholes are another form.

But a strong welfare state that helps facilitate prosperity for the lower income peoples and the middle class is not a bad idea. The Great Compression which took place after World War II is proof of this. The share income of the very wealthy crumbled, and the vast majority of the people had a fair shot at success (the American Dream). It was a time of great prosperity. Political balance between the parties was even. In fact, the consensus was frequently bipartisan, because the Republican party accepted the New Deal as part of society for the better.

It's not redistribution if it goes towards the protection of the entire community; such as the police, the military, the fire department, and so on. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the entire community, in which it represents.

Senators are suppose to represent their respective states, Representatives are suppose to represent their constituency, and the President is suppose to represent the Federation.
In other words, the house of reps represents the people, the senators represents the free/member states, and the president represents the union state.

Who pays for the salaries of these policemen, firemen, etc.? Is money not being redistributed from one person to the policeman or fireman?

That's not redistribution, they are earning that salary, it's not just being handed to them.

Taxation is redistribution, the income from person A is going to person B. Taxation brings about a different distribution of income, do you agree?

Redistribution of wealth means to reorganize the distribution of wealth.
If one taxes the rich to fund programs for the poor, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes the poor to fund programs for the rich, they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes Florida to build a bridge in NH they are redistributing wealth.
If one taxes both the rich and the poor to pay a police officer a wage for protecting both the rich and the poor, they are not redistributing wealth.

Redistribution of wealth has to do with appropriation not taxation.

But the money is being appropriated.

It depends on how it's appropriated not if it's appropriated. You are as dense as a rock.

The poor don't pay income taxes, they pay a much smaller % than the rich - it's primarily the top 20% who are paying for police forces.

Just because the poor don't pay taxes under the current code does not mean all tax codes are the same.
Money derived from taxation is appropriated to certain causes resulting in a redistribution of income in contrast to how it would be without this mechanism. In other words, there's a clear difference in the distribution of incomes between a society that publicly pays for police forces and firemen and one that does not because the money needs to come from somewhere - the taxpayer, nor does it really matter who exactly is paying for it. This will probably be my last post on the subject.

Appropriation and taxation are two seperate events; in order for it to be wealth redistribution it has to be distributed/appropriated to only a portion of the community, rather than benefiting the community as a whole.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:58:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:46:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

A legitimate tax is an equal tax on everybody, with equal benefit to everybody. Anything else isn't an equal tax.

How do you measure benefit when value is inherently subjective?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:59:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:50:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

Depends on the type of tax. Many forms of taxation are harmful. Taxes should be simple, because a complex tax code hurts the economy. Taxes should not deter employment, or investment, and taxes should not be uses as an intentional deterant.
Taxes on profit should be flat, while property taxes should be progressive.

I wasn't asking what type of tax you think we should have, but what justifies it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 12:01:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 11:59:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:50:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

Depends on the type of tax. Many forms of taxation are harmful. Taxes should be simple, because a complex tax code hurts the economy. Taxes should not deter employment, or investment, and taxes should not be uses as an intentional deterant.
Taxes on profit should be flat, while property taxes should be progressive.

I wasn't asking what type of tax you think we should have, but what justifies it.

Taxes are justified by the type of tax, and the need to fund the state's budget.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 12:02:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 12:01:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:59:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:50:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

Depends on the type of tax. Many forms of taxation are harmful. Taxes should be simple, because a complex tax code hurts the economy. Taxes should not deter employment, or investment, and taxes should not be uses as an intentional deterant.
Taxes on profit should be flat, while property taxes should be progressive.

I wasn't asking what type of tax you think we should have, but what justifies it.

Taxes are justified by the type of tax, and the need to fund the state's budget.

(A) how does the specific type of tax justify itself and (B) if I come up short on my projected budget for next year can I tax you to make up the deficit?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 12:08:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are as dense as a rock.

Perhaps, but you know what sucks more than being dense as a rock?

Losing a debate to someone who's dense as a rock.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 12:10:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 12:02:50 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/23/2012 12:01:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:59:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:50:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/22/2012 11:44:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
This brings up an interesting topic. If conservatives view taxation as legitimate, under what circumstances can they really argue that it's not?

Depends on the type of tax. Many forms of taxation are harmful. Taxes should be simple, because a complex tax code hurts the economy. Taxes should not deter employment, or investment, and taxes should not be uses as an intentional deterant.
Taxes on profit should be flat, while property taxes should be progressive.

I wasn't asking what type of tax you think we should have, but what justifies it.

Taxes are justified by the type of tax, and the need to fund the state's budget.

(A) how does the specific type of tax justify itself
The type of tax can make taxation unjustified, so form of taxation must be correct in order for it to be just.
and (B) if I come up short on my projected budget for next year can I tax you to make up the deficit?
Depends on if you first cut waste, and unjustified expenditures.
Taxation is only justified if required to balance a budget; if a budget can be trimmed there is no point in increasing taxes unless the trims have been made first
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 12:12:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 12:08:52 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You are as dense as a rock.

Perhaps, but you know what sucks more than being dense as a rock?


Losing a debate to someone who's dense as a rock.

I only lost due to bias, and vote bombing.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:56:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 12:12:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/23/2012 12:08:52 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You are as dense as a rock.

Perhaps, but you know what sucks more than being dense as a rock?


Losing a debate to someone who's dense as a rock.

I only lost due to bias, and vote bombing.

Here we go again. You do realize that you have a different definition of votebombing as everyone else who uses this site right?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:00:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 10:56:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/23/2012 12:12:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/23/2012 12:08:52 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You are as dense as a rock.

Perhaps, but you know what sucks more than being dense as a rock?


Losing a debate to someone who's dense as a rock.

I only lost due to bias, and vote bombing.

Here we go again. You do realize that you have a different definition of votebombing as everyone else who uses this site right?

When a voter specifically says they ignored the resolution, I consider it proof of openly vote bombing.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 3:35:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why does this thread exist. Who here supports wealth redistribution?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 3:35:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why does this thread exist. Who here supports wealth redistribution?

Liberals, socialists, communists, many conservatives (though to a lesser extent), many moderates, anyone who defends the status quo/current system... Which means most non-libertarians/anarchists I think. Actually, I'd say supporting wealth redistribution, at least to some extent, is far more popular than opposing it. At least if you define wealth redistribution as follows: Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law. (From the Wikipedia page for redistribution of wealth.)

It's important to remember that most conservatives/Republicans don't oppose the redistribution of wealth; a) they're perfectly fine with it as long as there's a Republican president b) they think Obama has taken it too far but would certainly not strive to eliminate our wealth redistribution system entirely. (And we all know that if flip-flopper Mitt is elected, he won't strive to eliminate it at all.)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:15:37 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 3:35:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why does this thread exist. Who here supports wealth redistribution?

Liberals, socialists, communists, many conservatives (though to a lesser extent), many moderates, anyone who defends the status quo/current system... Which means most non-libertarians/anarchists I think. Actually, I'd say supporting wealth redistribution, at least to some extent, is far more popular than opposing it. At least if you define wealth redistribution as follows: Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law. (From the Wikipedia page for redistribution of wealth.)


I would exclude charity however assuming it's voluntary - this discussion is devoted solely to forced redistribution at the hands of the state (at a local, state, and/or federal level).
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theft is not a concrete thing. It is a tool-concept by society for a certain ends. Wealth-redistribution can render the idea of theft temporarily obsolete when it is good towards the ends that society has chosen.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:22:20 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Theft is not a concrete thing. It is a tool-concept by society for a certain ends. Wealth-redistribution can render the idea of theft temporarily obsolete when it is good towards the ends that society has chosen.

Very finely put.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:29:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:22:20 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Theft is not a concrete thing. It is a tool-concept by society for a certain ends. Wealth-redistribution can render the idea of theft temporarily obsolete when it is good towards the ends that society has chosen.

Yeah, exactly! Just like murder is not a concrete thing. If society chooses ends that desire the destruction of a certain race, it is no longer murder to kill them!

The Holocaust was justified!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right