Why not wealth redistribution?

That is rich. The US was founded and settled, expanded, went through the industrial revolution, and fought a World War with a population that was largely illiterate except for the Bible, all before "the state" decided it needed to micromanage people's lives and control their prosperity.

 

Anarcho-capitalists would beg to differ, but I somewhat agree.

Theoretically, capitalism could be run completely privately, but that hasn't been the case in reality so far.

 

It's impossible to enforce contracts without courts, and capitalism without contracts is impossible.

 

Anacaps propose private courts and "free associations" that cover both prerequisites.

 

Not really. Ever wonder why all those arbitration provisions in contracts these days?

 

So a contract enforced by a private court, i wonder why there has never been a successful anarchist country?

- - - Updated - - -

Because the arbitration can be enforced by courts, don't be silly...

- - - Updated - - -

Because the arbitration can be enforced by courts, don't be silly...

 

an anarchist country is an oxymoron

 

They also have the highest tax burden relative to income in the United States when all forms of taxation are accounted for and that dramatically reduces their "disposable income" that is used to pay for things like food and housing. Wouldn't it be better to reduce their tax burden relative to income which would increase their disposable income so they didn't require welfare for food and housing?

It short, don't take the money from the poor with taxation so they don't need the government to give it back to them as welfare assistance. Instead of state/federal taxation of the bottom 50% of Americans to support government why not tax the upper 50% that can actually afford to pay the taxes?

We don't need to "redistribute wealth" to the poor but instead need to stop taking money from them in the form of taxation.

 

Since about half of America already pays no FIT, isn't that where we are now?

 

If something like that ever happens, we'll be able to thank the red states for the fine redistributionist example they have set.

 

Perhaps, but the translation is always the same in my ears, "I want the government to force somebody else to pay my bills."

 

if they're poor they are already getting free money and food stamps either that or theyre eligible and not taking advantage. the least they can do is pay in a measly $5 a week.

- - - Updated - - -

what i'm hearing is, "stop taking 1% of my free stuff"

 

There may in fact be some enjoyment of inequality - the thought that there's always a homeless guy you can say is the cause of all problems that include theirs and everyone elses, even though in reality they are powerless and innocent.
I'd say however that people who think like this are few. The people who hate redistribution, as a concept, are mostly just ignorant, even stupid in being willfully blind to other's suffering and this seems to stem from being indoctrinated on multiple social levels (school, family, media, local community, religious groups etc) and from various other sources (politicians, propaganda, social networks, political affiliation etc).

 

I'd agree that the government should force people on occasion to pay for others' bills where the circumstances require it.

 

So people who desire to have the right to retain the fruit of the labor are ignorant, stupid, or vindictive?

 

That isn't wealth redistribution

 

In the right scenario, hell yes.

 

How would you define wealth redistribution then?

 

give me a scenario and two me why is acceptable for one person to dictate that the fruits of one's labor are required to be shared.

 

Wealth redistribution had to do with an agenda driven by some idealistic goal of equality.

What you explained is policy dictated by empathy, not necessarily to create equality in terms of wealth, but rather to provide a minimum standard of living to everybody.

 

1. A scenario of the clear and 'hell yeah' kind would be one whereby a person has acquired wealth such that they have excess resources, whilst another person cannot obtain wealth for them self and is unable to provide themselves with basic and shared needs thereby suffering immensely because of it.
In that scenario all else being equal, there is no reason a third party government should not intervene and give some of the money of the former to the latter.

2. Because it is ethical for people to, even by being compelled, share resources amongst others so as to ensure as many people as possible achieve shared interests of necessity.

 

For a source for that? I thought wealth redistribution was simply the forcible redistribution of wealth.

Not dictated by empathy, rather simple logic and ethics.

 

The Federal Income tax is just one tax of many taxes the person pays. Some provisions related to the "income tax" are also "wellfare" benefits paid as a "refund" such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. Also remember that the lowest paid worker generates a 15.3% tax on their labor starting at the first dollar of gross income. Yes, 1/2 of that is paid for by the employer but it is still a tax on the income of the worker but just isn't "reported" as income to the worker. That 15.3% tax on gross income alone is a higher tax rate than many with multi-million income earners pay in federal taxes. For example Mitt Romney paid less than 14% on over $22 million in gross income in 2011.

The greater problem is with state taxation of course. Many states have very regressive taxation and I apparently live in the worst state (WA) in this regard. A recent study revealed that a low income worker in WA had 14-times the tax burden relative to income when compared to our high income earners that includes people like Bill Gates and Paul Allen.

I have a thread that does address fair taxation at the federal level that I've posted before and will provide the link agian upon request. At the State level, which is a much harder problem because it requires all 50 states to change, I've proposed a consumption tax with prebates to eliminate the regressive nature of state taxation.

Once agian my position is that instead of "redistribution" we should just reduce taxation on the poor and allow them to keep more of what they earn. The difference between "gross income" and "disposable income" because of the tax burden for the poor is something that people seem to not understand or address.

 

The Federal Government collects $44.37/wk in taxes based upon a full time worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr even if the person files for an income tax exemption on their W-4. That's roughly 9-times more than what you think they should be paying according to your statement.