(09-20-2012 11:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Taxes are collected to finance the costs of governmental operation.

You are saying a govt. collects taxes and cycles that back out in services that's "NOT" redistribution of wealth?

Your problem is that you define wealth strictly as cash assets.

Hwy taxes, as one of the best examples, means I get something of value for my taxes. And yes, I pay the road construction crew to do it. So in the value-for-value exchange, I haven't lost wealth.

But that's not "redistribution of wealth" or you'd have to define every economic transaction as such.

(09-20-2012 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl and Smaug...........

1st Owl- No where in the definition of reditribute to they mention anything of value. It's just not there. Maybe that's a definition you want to put to it but nowhere is it there.

Smaug-

That's not for me to answer. It's arbitrary.

You are correct. Redistribution has nothing to with value. That is why it is redistribution.

(09-20-2012 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Smaug-

That's not for me to answer. It's arbitrary.

I'm asking a philosophical question.

How much is enough? Give me your opinion.

(09-20-2012 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If any politician every voted for any type of income tax, saless tax, or highway gasoline tax. Wouldn't all of them believe in redistribution? I mean what a crock this argument is??

Tell me any type of politician that doesn't

RE- prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition

Distribution- the act of-
1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.


You guy's have went completely bat **** INSANE. EVERY poltician in our nation's history that has voted for a sales tax or income tax BELIEVES in redistribution of money. ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME!

Taxes by themselves, no. not at all.
However, expenditures beyond costs of operating the three branches of government (like payroll for employees) can definitely be construed as a basic redistribution. Police? Yep. I can't afford my own personal security force, so the government takes money from all of us to provide for a public security force. Same with fire departments. In fact, almost all government services are redistribution. However, the problem people have is when this redistribution is a direct exchange of wealth or limited access services. People don't like paying for what they can't or don't use/need. They also don't like feeling as if they are having money taken away from them and given directly to others who have the ability to earn income themselves. They get completely bent out of shape when the government redistributes for the purpose of raising incomes for others to the detriment of their own, especially when the measuring stock for "need" is a completely arbitrary "poverty line" that is not equally applicable across the nation. Quite simply, what constitutes poverty level income in California is basically middle class in mississippi. Yet due to many factors the quality of living can be quite higher in poorer states than more affluent states at a much lower household income.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

(09-20-2012 01:38 PM)NTMB Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If any politician every voted for any type of income tax, saless tax, or highway gasoline tax. Wouldn't all of them believe in redistribution? I mean what a crock this argument is??

Tell me any type of politician that doesn't

RE- prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition

Distribution- the act of-
1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.


You guy's have went completely bat **** INSANE. EVERY poltician in our nation's history that has voted for a sales tax or income tax BELIEVES in redistribution of money. ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME!

Taxes by themselves, no. not at all.
However, expenditures beyond costs of operating the three branches of government (like payroll for employees) can definitely be construed as a basic redistribution. Police? Yep. I can't afford my own personal security force, so the government takes money from all of us to provide for a public security force. Same with fire departments. In fact, almost all government services are redistribution. However, the problem people have is when this redistribution is a direct exchange of wealth or limited access services. People don't like paying for what they can't or don't use/need. They also don't like feeling as if they are having money taken away from them and given directly to others who have the ability to earn income themselves. They get completely bent out of shape when the government redistributes for the purpose of raising incomes for others to the detriment of their own, especially when the measuring stock for "need" is a completely arbitrary "poverty line" that is not equally applicable across the nation. Quite simply, what constitutes poverty level income in California is basically middle class in mississippi. Yet due to many factors the quality of living can be quite higher in poorer states than more affluent states at a much lower household income.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I require defense...safety...protection and a variety of things government handles that I need and want. Taxation to pay for that is not redistribution of wealth but payment for services. Value for value. Even many of the things that government does that I personally do not need still are traded value for value. Taking however the fruits of my labor and directly giving it to able bodied people for no other reason but that they are poor...is redistribution. There is "social" value..but..no tangible value in this transaction since I get zero benefit from it. Please keep in mind I am talking about this in an unemotional way. I fully want to help those in need and even am willing to donate to that effort. I just object to having a gun put to my head and being forced to do it.

(09-20-2012 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl and Smaug...........

1st Owl- No where in the definition of reditribute to they mention anything of value. It's just not there. Maybe that's a definition you want to put to it but nowhere is it there.

Smaug-

That's not for me to answer. It's arbitrary.

I don't see where you've given a definition of "redistribute." You've given a definition of "distribute" to which you have appended a definition of the prefix "re-." And the verbs contained in the first definition of "distribute"--give, allot, deal (out)--clearly connote no value in return, which is entirely consistent with my comments.

Describing the collecting of fees/taxes to pay for things for "the public good" such as public transportation, roads, defense etc etc as redistributive may be technically correct... but it is a far cry from being the same thing as taxing one person to pay for the benefits of another. We can ALL use the roads and public transportation. We can ALL rely on the military and police to protect us. To the extent that we don't choose to avail ourselves of their services by hiring private security or buying a helicopter, that is our choice NOT to participate in the public good that we funded. Directly sending people money to fund food, shelter or for that matter, contraception isn't something that I can participate in. I have to "qualify" to get to use services that I pay for. It is a vicarious argument to equate them and intentionally or not, attempts to belittle the "complaint" about an intrusive government.

Now, before you say it... This is not an argument against SOME redistribution. It is an argument against equating welfare and the power grid. Between something all I have to do to use is show up, and something for which, the more i likely paid for it, the less I am ALLOWED to use it.

THAT is the redistribution

(09-20-2012 03:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Describing the collecting of fees/taxes to pay for things for "the public good" such as public transportation, roads, defense etc etc as redistributive may be technically correct... but it is a far cry from being the same thing as taxing one person to pay for the benefits of another. We can ALL use the roads and public transportation. We can ALL rely on the military and police to protect us. To the extent that we don't choose to avail ourselves of their services by hiring private security or buying a helicopter, that is our choice NOT to participate in the public good that we funded. Directly sending people money to fund food, shelter or for that matter, contraception isn't something that I can participate in. I have to "qualify" to get to use services that I pay for. It is a vicarious argument to equate them and intentionally or not, attempts to belittle the "complaint" about an intrusive government.

Now, before you say it... This is not an argument against SOME redistribution. It is an argument against equating welfare and the power grid. Between something all I have to do to use is show up, and something for which, the more i likely paid for it, the less I am ALLOWED to use it.

THAT is the redistribution

Let's put this in Randian terms. Anything that the fruits of my labor are used for that are in my self interest is fine. Anything that is not?..is redistribution of my labor.

(09-20-2012 11:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Taxes are collected to finance the costs of governmental operation.

You are saying a govt. collects taxes and cycles that back out in services that's "NOT" redistribution of wealth?

Did you even read what you wrote. You are scewing the word redistribution to fit your definition.

The government collects taxes. The government distributes that tax money to pay for services that it then provides to the taxpayers to use if they wish. The redistribution part is using the tax money other than as intended (which is to pay for the services as described above) but to give to particular persons who are in specific situations for their own personal use.

It's that simple. Don't try to create confusion by generalizing the word redistribution beyond it's meaning.