Why not wealth redistribution?

Are you pretending they don't get tax returns?

 

Can anyone here tell me how the hell they they think they are entitled to someone elses money.

 

perhaps they lost a limb protecting it?

 

Oh! I can even though I am no longer nowadays posting on the side of leftwingers, I still remember how leftwingers thi -- er -- emote. Ahem! Ready for this? "You did not EARN that!"

Ta-da!

The rationalization behind that sentiment is that since all resources ultimately belong to the people (but to leftwingers, only in the form of government) that 'obviously' includes all money. So the wealthy -- except the leftwing wealthy -- are STEALING from citizens. Thus it's only justice to 'redistribute' all wealth -- um -- except leftwing wealth, that is.

 

I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's surely a lot more difficult.

That being said, I prefer having a government and having a mixture of capitalism and socialism present.

 

Because its readily apparent that we ought to ensure as many people as possible's basic and shared interests are provided for even if it means by forcibly taking from a third party.

 

OK, how do you enforce a contract without a court? without legal recourse?

You come to me and say "OK, I've delivered the goods, now according to our contract you must pay me...."
And I say "Sorry, I don't want to.."
and you say "Well, we have a contract"

and I say "So sue me, Oh that's right, no courts......"

 

Or you could just fulfill the contract.

 

Right wingers on this forum have been voting against their best interest for decades. They are not moved by logic or facts. Today's middle/poor right winger is a willing surf upholding his master. They would rather live and die poor than admit they've been had by the rich and powerful.

 

Yeah, you could, but without courts, you need to hire muscle to enforce contracts.
Which gets too expensive.
Capitalism without the infrastructure government provides is nearly impossible.

 

Is say many contracts would still be complied with.

I agree.

 

I assume you meant "tax refunds" and not "tax returns" as the tax return is just the document the person files. Yes. many do get tax refunds but all tax refunds are based upon the "income tax" as no tax refunds are related to the FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes collected which are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund and used to fund Social Security and Medicare.

The only time there is any "tax refund" from the Social Security Trust Fund is if a person pays in more than the maximum amount in Social Security taxes during the year (there is no limit on the Medicare portion). This occures if a person works two different high paying jobs in the same year where combined income exceeds the maximum income level for Social Security contributions (about $110,000/yr).

What amazes me is that so many Americans, mostly conservatives, are so ignorant when it comes to taxation in the United States. Can anyone explain this apparent ignorance?

 

I get 2 tax refund checks one from state and one from federal. And when I said 1% I was exadurating. Regardless they get back more in welfare and food stamps than they put in thanks to people who aren't poor that you libs are squeezing the life out of.

 

Welfare assistance is addressing a necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty which, when addressing working, generally relates to the failures of capitalism for numerous reasons. Obviously invidious discrimination that denies equality of economic opportunity as well as market coercion when the "law of supply and demand" is applied to "labor" that violates the Law of Contract are major contributors to this failure of capitalism but I address a much simplier problem that is more easily addressed if we want to.

It makes no sense to collect taxes from those where the taxation reduces their disposable income to the point that they can't survive on it without assistance. The tax burden of the person relates to all of the taxes they're subjected to and not just one or two. I've made two proposals where one addresses the federal tax burden and the other addresses the state tax burden and they are not about the "redistribution of wealth" but instead they directly related to a person being able to keep what they earn with their labor.

Allowing a person to keep more of what they earn increases their disposable income and that reduces the necessity for welfare assistance.

 

Its not that hard to get a job that pays more than minimum wage. The last time I was making minimum wage was about 15 years ago and it didn't take long to find a better job if you're willing to work. I'm still eligible for welfare and I don't need it. I didn't make the stupid mistake of having 3 kids I couldn't afford and what i do pay in taxes shouldn't go to subsidies people who don't care to be responsible.
Serious question now: if welfare is the answer then why isn't it working?

 

Define welfare and working. What an absurd question.

 

We can certainly cite anecdotal cases but as FactCheck.org states, "The pural of anecdotal is no data."

Welfare assistance is "working" because it's purpose is to mitigate the effects of poverty.

What welfare assistance doesn't do and what it was never designed to do is to reduce poverty. Welfare assistance is treating a "symptom" of poverty and not the "problem" of poverty.

There are roughly 18 million American still without a job today and there are not 18 million jobs including minimum wage jobs. Even for those with advanced technical knowledge there are no jobs. People that worked to improve their job knowledge and experience can't get a job because there are far more of them out of work that there are job opportunites. Roughly 1/3rd of Americans with a four-year college degree are working in employment that doesn't require a college degree and are often working for wages close to the minimum wage.

We can also note that Republicans have never offered any proposals that would reduce poverty and actually support proposals that increase poverty in the United States as they focus on the wealthy having more disposable income as opposed to the poor having more disposable income.

 

Yes they have. Namely stop paying them to not work. The money saved could go into another "genius" stimulus plan.

 

subsidize*
this guy sums it up perfectly. i dont really agree with the sterilization part but id go as far as to end welfare for anyone who decided to have kids while on welfare.
[video=youtube;q84ZRVSI_Vk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q84ZRVSI_Vk[/video]

 

The above, that the -only- kind of government is central, and the -only- way to have the benefit of government is to have a gigantic central government, is a fallacy the left perpetually engages in, purposefully I think, in furtherance of leftist self-interest and appeals to central government power to steal from others. There are 3 levels of addressing contract disputes in my municipality alone, only one is a federal court. The other fallacy is that complaining about the current extent of redistribution, taxation and regulation equates to appeals to anarchy. It doesn't.

 

The statement was made in response to some advocating the complete absence of government.
Now you have tried to hedge that, by saying we don't need large government units, small local ones would work.
And I'm going to tell you that small local government wouldn't work for capitalism on a large scale.
It's the size of the government unit that determines the size of the market.
If your small local government decides to enforce a contract, it's power ends at the city limits, two towns over it has no say.
And so a commercial venture in this fantasy world would be limited in scope, one of the reasons such places do not exist.

 

FDR was the one that signed Social Security Act into law. All Democrats are bragging about it as the best thing ever happened to this country. About 80 yrs later, there is a one PF poster name Shiva who does not like it and apparently pissed off about having to contribute his fair share to the system so he points finger to everyone across the isle. Sure....can anyone explain this ignorance?

 

It is about the definition of what constitutes a "fair share". What is a "fair" tax rate?

During the Eisenhower administration the very upper level wealthy income tax rate was 91%

At the particular time, that was considered a "fair share" because it was predicated on the rational used for taxation to fund the American victory in WW2. So the continuation of such a tax rate during the Cold War, seemed to most Americans to be necessary.

This particular time during the 50's was a time when US corporations were "American" and the idea of being "American" meant a patriotic duty towards the USA first. There were few corporations embracing the construct of being internationalist independent venture capitalists.

But they were preparing for the eventuality, as the framework for internationalist venture capitalism was established in 1947 with Truman signing into law the 1947 National Security Act. And the first revision of the Constitution allowing for executive order to engage in "police action" deployment of US military. And the creation of a completely independent, internationalist agency, the CIA.

Is it any wonder, that in 2014, we witnessed aggression by the BLM, (created at same time as CIA), under direction from one Senator attempting to protect his crony capitalist scheme to sell "federally owned" land to internationalist venture capitalists?

 

You're completely missing the point. And I wasn't talking about income tax rate at all. The response was to Shiva's strongly against SSI tax specifically. It's the Democrat that made the rule. You can't change the rule whenever you see it fit. It's a lowest form of integrity if you ask me.

 

Could you personally live off welfare?