Why not wealth redistribution?

Making my own pies isn't income. The IRS doesn't tax my pies, unless I sell them. And earning income isn't a requirement in our country, we have at will employment here — which means I can opt not to receive an income.


​

 

dude, hiding behind fiat money's skirts? a commodity is a form of capital. Why is it most of the right seems to not understand simple Capitalism?

 

Argue with the IRS if you want to redefine the term. Creating value doesn't mean I received income.




​

 

I don't need to "re-define" anything. I know why Government invented fiat money.

 

Let me guess.....

Zeitgeist?

 

... fascinating. And yet you don't understand the term income.



​

 

I believe it all starts with a social Contract delegating the Power to Tax to a body politic.

 

Because the Republic of the United States is not here to protect the rights of society, but rather it is here to protect the rights of the individual. What you are suggesting sounds more like a Democratic Totalitarianistic Regime. Or a DTR as I will refer to it. A DTR would be a country which uses its power to control the individual to appease the whole population. Which isn't free. The USA uses its power to protect the individual instead. I understand your point, who really needs $20 billion dollars in their bank? But who's right is it to go ask Bill Gates to give up most of the wealth he worked very hard acquiring?

 

And you don't give me any impression that you know anything about investments either.

But carry on keep counting other people money, seems like that is what you love doing.

 

Have you considered advocating your position over any "compelling public interest" arguments?

 

The U.S. government can not do whatever it pleases however. The nation was established to work for the people and that ultimately dwindles down to making sure the individuals within society are protected. Taking money would be not be protecting. And you're right about the constitution protecting society and etc. However it is more focused on the individual. Take for example the 1st amendment. Because of the 1st amendment I'm allowed to post this message without fear that society (or more likely on here two or three other members) will make me take it down and shut up.

 

Maybe that would be the ideal, but that is not what is going on. As it is, the U.S. Governments are primarily concerned with protecting the privileges of the rich. When government taxes producers and consumers and spends that money on services and infrastructure that makes landowners richer, how is that protecting the rights of the individual? What is really happening is that government is infringing on the rights of individuals, in order to shovel unearned wealth into the pockets of special interests.

Bill Gates is rich because government has infringed on the rights of individuals in order to protect Bill Gates from competition. In a true free market environment Bill Gates would be a nobody. But I think you might already know this, because you used the word “acquiring” and not “earning” when you referenced his wealth.

The fact is that free markets do not produce billionaires … competition will not allow it. The unfettered competition of free markets is suppose to work to reduce profits and elevate wages. When you see massive fortunes such as Bill Gates has “acquired” you should be asking yourself what is preventing competition from sharing in that wealth. As for the government, they should not be looking for ways to tax away that wealth, instead they should be removing the legal privileges that inhibit competition, which allows wealth to concentrate in the first place.

 

Why even have a social Power to Tax, if not to redistribute wealth from "each according to their ability to each according to their need"?

 

I would advise you to look up your facts. The wealthy pay a whopping 43% of their income. Quite a lot. They pay almost all of the federal personal income tax which adds up to $1.1 trillion dollars of the $4 trillion collected by the Federal government. You say a free market doesn't allow for giants because of competition? I say you are wrong. Lets look at some of the strongest, wealthiest businesses and businessmen. John D. Rockefeller, rose from poverty to become the first American billionaire. Made his company by beating competition. Lets look at Apple. Made its money by beating the competition. Facebook. Made money by beating the competition. Competition encourages ingenuity. It encourages quality and hard work. We've seen this in history multiple times. Kingdoms, Companies, Countries, Man. Nicolai Tesla and Edison. The Cold War. Everything we have has come from competition.

 

This is different. This is a privately owned site. The admins/mods can take down my posts and even ban me, and if i happened to be a high placed government official who happened to not like being banned i would not be able to do a thing. I couldn't force the person who owns the site to let me operate on the site again. Which is another example of individual rights at play. And Meta i never said the government doesn't provide for the general welfare. I even agreed that it did. What I was stating was that unless it was of great national importance, the government will not take away the rights of a certain individual to benefit the society.

 

Do you live like that now? Do you have what you need? Do you need access to this site or is that excess? Can i have your books that you do not need? Your jewelry that you do not wear? Your clothes? Is it ok for me to come sleep in your bed that you may not be using at the time simply because i am tired?

 

The site wasn't my example though. And besides, this is a site dedicated to political discussion. If I can not post that here than I would be seriously disappointed. And there are of course exceptions. Say there is a anthrax breeding terrorist in your neighborhood. That individual is putting the harm of people as his goal so therefore his rights can be subject to dissolution.

 

You may be misunderstanding the concept. Private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty. Why do you believe socialism may even build entire cities just to bailout capitalism on a for profit basis instead of a more social goal for free.

 

Agree, distribute some over here.

 

Free never works. As in the ultimate rule of life, nothing is free. Its always taking blood and sweat of someone. Those who need something should use energy to acquire it. Using someone else's work is not a good thing.

 

I imagine he has the same rights under the law as you and I. What I'm saying is that under extreme acts of emergency, the United States of America has the emergency powers to dissolve whatever rights someone may have including habeas corpus in order to put an end to a danger. But you are a Guru Meta. I bet you've heard this before. What point are you getting at by focusing on an extreme situation in a thread about wealth redistribution?