Welfare in America (U.S.)

[marharth]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

Edited August 6, 2011 by marharth

[SpellAndShield]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

There are different kinds of taxes and no, there should be no income tax. Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral. Defence IS one of the few functions of government but defence is NOT militarism, nor fighting endless no win wars, dropping drone bombs on civilians, catering to the military industrial complex, nor engaging in nation building. The income tax in the US is barely 100 years old and goes hand in hand with the monster of the Federal Reserve. If we had a properly sized government we would need no income tax.

[SpellAndShield]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

 

So, we should just cut off all welfare programs, medicare, medicaid, and let the poor folks fend for themselves? What about unemployment? That amounts to the same thing, people getting paid from other peoples taxes..... shall we end that as well?

 

Yes, in time we should. None of those programmes is authorised by the Constitution. But you could do it in a logical progression. People have grown dependent on entitlements so where we should cut first and massively is in militarism, we don't need 1000+ bases in over 130 countries for example, nor the constant occupations and no win wars.Then you could start working on entitlements, prioritising.

 

If you care about poor people, you should care about monetary policy above all because poor people and the middle class are the first to get wiped out by inflation. Unemployment is not constitutional. I have been broke before but I did not suck on the government tit, I moved to Asia, worked there for several years and saved tons of money. There are always other options available but as long as welfare is there, people will always take the easy way out.

[marharth]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

There are different kinds of taxes and no, there should be no income tax. Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral. Defence IS one of the few functions of government but defence is NOT militarism, nor fighting endless no win wars, dropping drone bombs on civilians, catering to the military industrial complex, nor engaging in nation building. The income tax in the US is barely 100 years old and goes hand in hand with the monster of the Federal Reserve. If we had a properly sized government we would need no income tax.

Your considering wealth redistribution and taxation the exact same thing when its not. Your forced to do a lot of things honestly, taxation is just a small part of things you are forced to do.

 

If we were to start basing taxation on who wanted to pay taxes, how well do you think our government would do? How many people do you think would help people get a job out of the kindness of their hearts? A ton of people would be screwed without welfare, and it helps them move on with their lives and get jobs later on.

[SpellAndShield]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

There are different kinds of taxes and no, there should be no income tax. Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral. Defence IS one of the few functions of government but defence is NOT militarism, nor fighting endless no win wars, dropping drone bombs on civilians, catering to the military industrial complex, nor engaging in nation building. The income tax in the US is barely 100 years old and goes hand in hand with the monster of the Federal Reserve. If we had a properly sized government we would need no income tax.

Your considering wealth redistribution and taxation the exact same thing when its not. Your forced to do a lot of things honestly, taxation is just a small part of things you are forced to do.

 

If we were to start basing taxation on who wanted to pay taxes, how well do you think our government would do? How many people do you think would help people get a job out of the kindness of their hearts? A ton of people would be screwed without welfare, and it helps them move on with their lives and get jobs later on.

 

So you believe in government force? I suppose that is ok but I do not find it ethical, using the coercive power of the State to tell some people what to do, allegedly to do 'the right thing'...government has nothing, all it can do is take from others.

[marharth]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

There are different kinds of taxes and no, there should be no income tax. Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral. Defence IS one of the few functions of government but defence is NOT militarism, nor fighting endless no win wars, dropping drone bombs on civilians, catering to the military industrial complex, nor engaging in nation building. The income tax in the US is barely 100 years old and goes hand in hand with the monster of the Federal Reserve. If we had a properly sized government we would need no income tax.

Your considering wealth redistribution and taxation the exact same thing when its not. Your forced to do a lot of things honestly, taxation is just a small part of things you are forced to do.

 

If we were to start basing taxation on who wanted to pay taxes, how well do you think our government would do? How many people do you think would help people get a job out of the kindness of their hearts? A ton of people would be screwed without welfare, and it helps them move on with their lives and get jobs later on.

 

So you believe in government force? I suppose that is ok but I do not find it ethical, using the coercive power of the State to tell some people what to do, allegedly to do 'the right thing'...government has nothing, all it can do is take from others.

I don't believe in government force. Do you really think a modern government can run without taxation? Do you think that letting people die due to financial instability is fine? You can't help anyone without having a collective wealth to use. The best way to do this is through taxation and a government program. You may claim to believe in freedom, but your not so free if you end up dead or in extremely bad conditions due to the government ignoring you.

[myrmaad]

Of course I believe in government force. The opposite of "government force" or in other words a strong government, is Lawlessness.

 

No thanks.

[SpellAndShield]

Wealth redistribution is definitionally immoral. It takes someone else's earnings and gives them to someone else, no matter how noble the goal may be, it cannot be justfified. People have a right to keep what they earn.

With that logic, no one should have to pay taxes and the military should not be funded by public money. After all, military spending is using YOUR money and is giving it to someone else. The same thing with other taxes. The whole reason taxation exists is to fund the government so they can use the collected wealth to help the country as a whole.

 

Also tax cuts on a certain group is a form of wealth redistribution.

 

There are different kinds of taxes and no, there should be no income tax. Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral. Defence IS one of the few functions of government but defence is NOT militarism, nor fighting endless no win wars, dropping drone bombs on civilians, catering to the military industrial complex, nor engaging in nation building. The income tax in the US is barely 100 years old and goes hand in hand with the monster of the Federal Reserve. If we had a properly sized government we would need no income tax.

Your considering wealth redistribution and taxation the exact same thing when its not. Your forced to do a lot of things honestly, taxation is just a small part of things you are forced to do.

 

If we were to start basing taxation on who wanted to pay taxes, how well do you think our government would do? How many people do you think would help people get a job out of the kindness of their hearts? A ton of people would be screwed without welfare, and it helps them move on with their lives and get jobs later on.

 

So you believe in government force? I suppose that is ok but I do not find it ethical, using the coercive power of the State to tell some people what to do, allegedly to do 'the right thing'...government has nothing, all it can do is take from others.

I don't believe in government force. Do you really think a modern government can run without taxation? Do you think that letting people die due to financial instability is fine? You can't help anyone without having a collective wealth to use. The best way to do this is through taxation and a government program. You may claim to believe in freedom, but your not so free if you end up dead or in extremely bad conditions due to the government ignoring you.

 

Taxation is use of government force. It is coercion, as soon as you admit that then your position could be defensible as long as you conceded that coercion is necessary for the 'good' of society. I have no desire to pay an income tax and even less to engage in the mockery of taxation without representation that is currently the case in the US. Remember, your tax dollars are possibly being spent on dropping bombs on a bunch of chilren in Yemen and Pakistan as we speak.You want a gigantic juggernaut government, I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[SpellAndShield]

Of course I believe in government force. The opposite of "government force" or in other words a strong government, is Lawlessness.

 

No thanks.

 

At least you are honest. We already have a huge government that is the very definition of lawlessness, constantly flouting the Constitution by engaging in constant wars, corporate welfare (military industrial complex, medical industrial complex, Wallstreet, etc.). A smaller government that follows the law of the land is not lawlessness and it allows for FAR MORE government oversight to make sure things are being done properly.

[marharth]

Taxation is use of government force. It is coercion, as soon as you admit that then your position could be defensible as long as you conceded that coercion is necessary for the 'good' of society. I have no desire to pay an income tax and even less to engage in the mockery of taxation without representation that is currently the case in the US. Remember, your tax dollars are possibly being spent on dropping bombs on a bunch of chilren in Yemen and Pakistan as we speak.You want a gigantic juggernaut government, I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Taxation I guess is government force. I don't see why you would rather have a lawless society.

 

I don't support the wars, I support the good use of government taxation. I also never said I want a large government.