Save us, Wealth-Creator Man!

[Seth]

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

Shouldn't you define "wealth redistribution" first?

Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers).

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Has anyone proposed that in this thread?

Um, what part of "Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers)" is unclear to you. Paying a construction worker to build a bridge that I can drive on is completely different from having the government take my money and redistribute it to welfare cases so they can buy cigarettes and crack. If you are unable to understand that distinction, it's not worth discussing such complex concepts with you.

[Drewish]

Gosh, the only reason I haven't given up on this thread is because PordFrefect seemed like he at least desired an honest discussion.

Just because you don't like having your agenda deconstructed doesn't mean it's not an "honest discussion."

The accusations of it being a dishonest discussion were over the repeated insults and straw men of my position, not the questions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dawww, Andrew has me on ignore.

[Seth]

I think we should focus on instances where services ar enot rendered in exchange for said funds. Things liek public housing, welfare, and medicaid are good examples in the American system.

But services are rendered in those examples. The gov't uses revenues to hire construction workers to build public housing, and a portion of the population lives in them. Food stamps help prevent people from going hungry. Medicaid provides health care for the poor and disabled. Those are all "services".

Who are the services rendered to, and who is the wealth redistributed from to render those services. That's the essential question.

If I use a public highway or sewer system, I can reasonably and morally be expected to pay for my proportional share of the costs of building and operating those public amenities because I gain direct benefit from using and having those facilities available to me.

However, when the government extracts taxes from me to pay for welfare housing, food stamps or direct welfare payments, or Medicaid, I gain no direct benefit whatsoever from that exaction. I am being forced to pay (and labor) on behalf of people I don't know and have not accepted financial responsibility for. I am not responsible for their economic plight or bad health. I did not create their problems, therefore dunning me for the bill to support them constitutes a forcible redistribution of the value of my labor to the benefit of someone else without my consent.

Social welfare programs are premised on the idea that there is some moral duty on the part of those who are better off to labor on behalf of those who are worse off. But this is not an economic argument, it's a philosophical one that claims that as members of the national community we have some sort of obligation to work and pay taxes not for what we consume, but for the benefit of others.

There may be a legitimate moral obligation to take care of those in a society who, for reasons not of their own making, are in need, as a matter of compassion, public safety and public health. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for the disabled and destitute who are UNABLE to help themselves is indirect, but palpable. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for those who CHOOSE not to work and support themselves is far more abstract, and in most cases comes down to little more than paying the dependent class not to riot too often.

But I don't pay extortion, which is what that sort of redistribution is. I'll gladly pay for the use of military force to eliminate the rioting dependent class because that's resolving the problem with finality. But pay the dependent class not to foment discord and sow chaos? Fuck no, just shoot 'em if they disrupt society because they want what doesn't belong to them.

[Gerald McGrew]

I didn't miss the point, I saw through the propaganda and lies to find the truth behind the study and therefore I'm responding directly to the point, just not the vacuous and obfuscatory point you and the authors are trying to make.

As I said, it's a worthless study because it tells us nothing about how to achieve a fairer distribution but is in essence a "push poll" that asks a vague and limited question that's being used as a justification for changing public policy regarding wealth distribution. It was created to support the Progressive/Leftist argument that because the current wealth distribution is "unfair" and (as you imply) everyone agrees that it could be "more fair," in order to achieve that "fairness" redistributive wealth transfer from those who "unfairly" hold most of the wealth is an appropriate method of achieving the desired "fairness."

Ah, so even though the study specifically stated it had no interest or intent to explore the issue of how to achieve more equitable wealth distribution, you just assume that's what it was all about. IOW, you imposed your own paranoia onto the study.

[Gerald McGrew]

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Except I pay for roads, water systems, and other pieces of infrastructure that I never use.

[Gerald McGrew]

However, when the government extracts taxes from me to pay for welfare housing, food stamps or direct welfare payments, or Medicaid, I gain no direct benefit whatsoever from that exaction. I am being forced to pay (and labor) on behalf of people I don't know and have not accepted financial responsibility for. I am not responsible for their economic plight or bad health. I did not create their problems, therefore dunning me for the bill to support them constitutes a forcible redistribution of the value of my labor to the benefit of someone else without my consent.

IOW, taxes.

Social welfare programs are premised on the idea that there is some moral duty on the part of those who are better off to labor on behalf of those who are worse off.

No. They are premised on the notion that as a society, we are better off when our poor, disabled, elderly, etc. are not left to starve in the streets. We make the obvious observation that as a country, we function better when they are provided assistance.

There may be a legitimate moral obligation to take care of those in a society who, for reasons not of their own making, are in need, as a matter of compassion, public safety and public health. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for the disabled and destitute who are UNABLE to help themselves is indirect, but palpable. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for those who CHOOSE not to work and support themselves is far more abstract, and in most cases comes down to little more than paying the dependent class not to riot too often.

But I don't pay extortion, which is what that sort of redistribution is. I'll gladly pay for the use of military force to eliminate the rioting dependent class because that's resolving the problem with finality. But pay the dependent class not to foment discord and sow chaos? Fuck no, just shoot 'em if they disrupt society because they want what doesn't belong to them.

That speaks for itself.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're we supposed to promote the common good somewhere along in here?

[Seth]

I didn't miss the point, I saw through the propaganda and lies to find the truth behind the study and therefore I'm responding directly to the point, just not the vacuous and obfuscatory point you and the authors are trying to make.

As I said, it's a worthless study because it tells us nothing about how to achieve a fairer distribution but is in essence a "push poll" that asks a vague and limited question that's being used as a justification for changing public policy regarding wealth distribution. It was created to support the Progressive/Leftist argument that because the current wealth distribution is "unfair" and (as you imply) everyone agrees that it could be "more fair," in order to achieve that "fairness" redistributive wealth transfer from those who "unfairly" hold most of the wealth is an appropriate method of achieving the desired "fairness."

Ah, so even though the study specifically stated it had no interest or intent to explore the issue of how to achieve more equitable wealth distribution, you just assume that's what it was all about. IOW, you imposed your own paranoia onto the study.

Of course that's what it's about. The "researchers" made the asinine claim that:

Overall, these results demonstrate two primary messages.
First, a large nationally representative sample of Americans
seems to prefer to live in a country more like Sweden than like
the United States.

The results say nothing of the kind. They say that a sample of Americans would like to live in a country where there is greater economic equality, not "more like Sweden." Trying to expand an interest in a more equal income distribution into a presumption that just because Sweden has a more equal income distribution Americans would prefer to to live in a country like Sweden is gross stupidity and incompetence.

Income equality is one data point in an analysis of the desirability of Americans to conform the US to some other social model.

Income in Cuba is quite equal...every fucking body is poor as a church mouse. But the scale is deceptive because it does not address the absolute values involved, it only addresses the relative wealth disparity. Therefore, according to this "research" Cuba would be top of the heap because everyone's wealth is equal, but equal to what?

The upshot is that the "research" is bogus because it's designed to support a predetermined conclusion; that a more equal and fair distribution of wealth is socially beneficial and the data is gathered in such a way as to confirm that conclusion by being deceptive with the respondents by failing to ask and analyze how they would prefer to achieve that wealth distribution.

Again, as I said, I agree that an income distribution that is less skewed is a good idea, but not if what's required to achieve it is forcible redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. If you asked the respondents in the survey "How would you like to see economic equality achieved? By forcible redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through confiscatory taxation or by improving the ability of the poor to work their way out of poverty through their own efforts?", you'll find that Americans will resoundingly reject the former and support the latter.

That's why the research is dishonest and unreliable, and why it's being used by the likes of you to support the socialist premise of wealth redistribution.

[Seth]

However, when the government extracts taxes from me to pay for welfare housing, food stamps or direct welfare payments, or Medicaid, I gain no direct benefit whatsoever from that exaction. I am being forced to pay (and labor) on behalf of people I don't know and have not accepted financial responsibility for. I am not responsible for their economic plight or bad health. I did not create their problems, therefore dunning me for the bill to support them constitutes a forcible redistribution of the value of my labor to the benefit of someone else without my consent.

IOW, taxes.

There are taxes levied to pay for one's use of government services and there are taxes levied to take and redistribute wealth from one person to another directly. I'm distinguishing between the two.

Social welfare programs are premised on the idea that there is some moral duty on the part of those who are better off to labor on behalf of those who are worse off.

No. They are premised on the notion that as a society, we are better off when our poor, disabled, elderly, etc. are not left to starve in the streets. We make the obvious observation that as a country, we function better when they are provided assistance.

That's what I said.

There may be a legitimate moral obligation to take care of those in a society who, for reasons not of their own making, are in need, as a matter of compassion, public safety and public health. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for the disabled and destitute who are UNABLE to help themselves is indirect, but palpable. The benefit to the individual taxpayer in paying for social welfare programs for those who CHOOSE not to work and support themselves is far more abstract, and in most cases comes down to little more than paying the dependent class not to riot too often.

But I don't pay extortion, which is what that sort of redistribution is. I'll gladly pay for the use of military force to eliminate the rioting dependent class because that's resolving the problem with finality. But pay the dependent class not to foment discord and sow chaos? Fuck no, just shoot 'em if they disrupt society because they want what doesn't belong to them.

That speaks for itself.

I certainly hope so. Don't try to steal what's mine because I'll defend my property against such theft. And I'll do the same to crowds of thugs who seek to steal and destroy what does not belong to them, and I'll sleep just fine.

[Seth]

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Except I pay for roads, water systems, and other pieces of infrastructure that I never use.

Indeed. And you should not be required to do so. You should pay as you go for, and only for that which you use or consume.

[Ian]

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Except I pay for roads, water systems, and other pieces of infrastructure that I never use.

Indeed. And you should not be required to do so. You should pay as you go for, and only for that which you use or consume.

You benefit from them all the time, even the ones you'll never see in person. Walk into a supermarket and look around - how did all that stuff get there?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Except I pay for roads, water systems, and other pieces of infrastructure that I never use.

Indeed. And you should not be required to do so. You should pay as you go for, and only for that which you use or consume.

You benefit from them all the time, even the ones you'll never see in person. Walk into a supermarket and look around - how did all that stuff get there?

The reality of that is unimportant to the cloistered world of the Libertarian.

[Gerald McGrew]

The results say nothing of the kind. They say that a sample of Americans would like to live in a country where there is greater economic equality, not "more like Sweden."

You've eliminated the entire context, where "more like Sweden" is given in the larger context of the point of the paper (wealth distribution structures).
You may as well argue that the authors were surreptitiously trying to say that Americans want to have extremely cold winters too.

Trying to expand an interest in a more equal income distribution into a presumption that just because Sweden has a more equal income distribution Americans would prefer to to live in a country like Sweden is gross stupidity and incompetence.

Except that's what the results show, i.e. that when asked to construct a desirable wealth distribution structure, Americans construct one that is almost exactly like Sweden's.

The upshot is that the "research" is bogus because it's designed to support a predetermined conclusion; that a more equal and fair distribution of wealth is socially beneficial and the data is gathered in such a way as to confirm that conclusion by being deceptive with the respondents by failing to ask and analyze how they would prefer to achieve that wealth distribution.

First, you've offered zero evidence of this "predetermined conclusion". Second, you've offered no evidence that their methodologies and analyses are fundamentally flawed. To me, it seems you simply don't like the results and are invoking a shadowy agenda in order to be able to dismiss the results. Rather like a creationist. When given examples of transitional fossils, they like to say they don't count because the paleontologists were looking for them when they found them.

The results of this study speak for themselves:

"First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo."

Unless you can give me a reason why those results were arrived at via faulty methodology, you're doing nothing more than foot-stomping.

Again, as I said, I agree that an income distribution that is less skewed is a good idea, but not if what's required to achieve it is forcible redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. If you asked the respondents in the survey "How would you like to see economic equality achieved? By forcible redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through confiscatory taxation or by improving the ability of the poor to work their way out of poverty through their own efforts?", you'll find that Americans will resoundingly reject the former and support the latter.

That's why the research is dishonest and unreliable, and why it's being used by the likes of you to support the socialist premise of wealth redistribution.

Except the paper said absolutely nothing of the sort. Thus you've succeeded in knocking down your own straw man. Congratulations.

[Gerald McGrew]

I certainly hope so. Don't try to steal what's mine because I'll defend my property against such theft. And I'll do the same to crowds of thugs who seek to steal and destroy what does not belong to them, and I'll sleep just fine.

Yep. I've had two discussions with you, and both of them ended with you resorting to "I'll shoot you". Very revealing.