Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

I think income tax is stealing and should be eliminated. I think all taxation that takes money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it is immoral

So all taxation is evil? Can you give me an example of a tax you allow?

 

[MachZer0]

So all taxation is evil? Can you give me an example of a tax you allow?

Where did I say that?

 

[Ken-1122]

Increasing money in the economy does no good unless we increase the amount of goods and services in the economy. If the total amount of goods and services remains at the same value it was before this income rise, then there is no increase in overall prosperity. We would have far more money chasing the same supply of goods which leads to a wild round of inflation that would negate any gains from the increase of income.

So before I answer your question, I need to know how much the GDP changes in your scenario. Or does it stay the same?

I said growth in income; not growth in currency. My point is; as long as the poor and middle income are better off; who cares if the rich make more! Do you agree?

K

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did I say that?

Oh puhleez. Now you are going to deny what you just said?

You said, "I think all taxation that takes money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it is immoral".

Now based on that statement, do you approve of any taxation at all? If so, what tax do you approve of?

 

[MachZer0]

Oh puhleez. Now you are going to deny what you just said?

You said, "I think all taxation that takes money from a person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it is immoral".

Now based on that statement, do you approve of any taxation at all? If so, what tax do you approve of?

Is it your perception that all taxation takes money from the person who earned it to give to the person who didn't earn it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I said growth in income; not growth in currency. My point is; as long as the poor and middle income are better off; who cares if the rich make more! Do you agree?

In your scenario, will there be anybody who still needs Social Security? Are there any abandoned kids who need orphanages and free elementary school education? Are there any dying uninsured people showing up at emergency rooms and needing government assistance? Unless your scenario eliminates such needs, then there will still be need for government programs to help these people.

And unless there is an increase in GDP, paying everybody higher salaries does nothing to improve their status in life. Improving GDP significantly may no longer be possible in this world. There are limited supplies of cheap oil. There are limited mineral reserves. Aquifiers, forests, and fisheries have been depleted. I doubt if it is possible to double the GDP, and it may not even be able to improve it much at all. So if the richest segment in your scenario currently consume say 10% of the total resources, and then have their percentage of their total income and spending increased to 50% of the total resources, and we have no increase in total resources, then that means the rest of us will be left with only 50% instead of 90% of the total resources.

So as long as the production from oil wells does not go way up, the production of factories does not go way up, the production of mines does not go way up, etc. and the rich in your scenario are given a larger percentage of the total, then yes, that will hurt the poor and middle classes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is it your perception that all taxation takes money from the person who earned it to give to the person who didn't earn it?

No.

Do you or do you not think all taxation is stealing?

Can you give me an example of any taxation that you think is not stealing?

Please, please, please, please, please, please, answer.

 

[MachZer0]

No.

Do you or do you not think all taxation is stealing?

Can you give me an example of any taxation that you think is not stealing?

Please, please, please, please, please, please, answer.

I explained my position on taxation and you misrepresented what I said. Please review my previous answer

 

[doubtingmerle]

I explained my position on taxation and you misrepresented what I said. Please review my previous answer

Please cut out the evasions.

Do you or do you not think all taxation is stealing?

Can you give me an example of any taxation that you think is not stealing?

Please, please, please, please answer.

 

[HonestTruth]

Should the federal government do anything about the growing income inequality? I hear a lot of people saying, "no". They do not want progressive taxation policies, where the rich pay tax at higher rates. They do not want laws favoring labor unions. They do not want minimum wage laws. Many don't even want unemployment payments, funding of schools and hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But without such things where would we be?

Consider what happened after the Roman Empire fell. With the collapse of central government, all of the means of production was scooped up by powerful people. The rest of the people had no real choice but to sell themselves as serfs in service to these powerful lords. Is this what anyone wants? Is this not the natural progression of things if the rich are allowed to get richer and dominate all means of production?

Everybody loves what we had in the later half of the twentieth century. But to achieve that there was a groundswell of support for progressive government programs. The highest tax rates on the rich were often 70% to 90%. Government supported unions. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare were started. Government helped make higher education affordable. The government was there as the tool to help needy people.

And think of how things were in the pioneer days. Various homestead acts allowed the poor to claim 160 acres or more for almost nothing. The government could have sold all that land to the highest bidder, allowing rich conglomerates to control it all, but they didn't. They gave opportunities to the poor. They gave away land for practically nothing. Image the outcry if the government were to announce a giveaway program like that today!

Do we need the government again to support the poor as it once did? Or should they adopt a Laissez Faire policy, letting businesses scoop up control of whatever they can, with the poor hoping that they too can somehow gain a part of the American Dream, even though they start with no capital, no higher education, and few opportunities for good jobs? It seems to me that if we want the opportunities we had in the twentieth century, we need to return to the progressive policies we had back then.

What do you think?

Read the Book of Amos

 

[HonestTruth]

Taxes are "evil"?


Read the Bible and see that they are lawful as per Romans 13:6,7 & II Kings 23:35 among other verses.

 

[MachZer0]

Please cut out the evasions.

Do you or do you not think all taxation is stealing?

Can you give me an example of any taxation that you think is not stealing?

Please, please, please, please answer.

I already answered that. I can't make anyone read the answer

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Ah, Socialism. Always fails, always has some nitwit who thinks it will work 'this time'.

Perhaps the United States has income inequity because some people apply themselves to earning a living and producing more than others? But Marx says that isn't so!

All you who want income equity as a government policy, please move to North Korea or Cuba and live with what you want. Why do you want to destroy this country?

 

[Ken-1122]

In your scenario, will there be anybody who still needs Social Security? Are there any abandoned kids who need orphanages and free elementary school education? Are there any dying uninsured people showing up at emergency rooms and needing government assistance? Unless your scenario eliminates such needs, then there will still be need for government programs to help these people.

Of course! a 10% increase for our poorest citizens is not enough to eliminate all the problems; we will just have less of it than we have now! My question is; even though that would cause an increase in income inequality that would be an improvement over what we have now; don't cha agree?

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course! a 10% increase for our poorest citizens is not enough to eliminate all the problems; we will just have less of it than we have now! My question is; even though that would cause an increase in income inequality that would be an improvement over what we have now; don't cha agree?

Ken

Right, we will never eliminate all problems. Jesus himself told us there will always be poor people. But that does not mean we stop helping.

As I said, increasing everybody's real wealth significantly in our finite world is probably not possible.

But if you could do that, and increase the possessions of the rich astronomically and increase the wealth of the poor slightly, I would still prefer increasing the wealth of the poor at least as much as the rich. And depending on the wealth divide, you run the risk of the poor revolting.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I already answered that. I can't make anyone read the answer

Balderdash. Quit playing games.

You have told us you think all income tax is immoral. You have not told us if you think sales tax, inheritance tax, tariffs, etc are immoral. You have not told us if you think all tax is immoral. Stop playing games.

Do you or do you not think all tax is immoral?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, Socialism. Always fails, always has some nitwit who thinks it will work 'this time'.

I think you misunderstand this thread. Please read it.

This thread is about Social Security, minimum wages laws, Medicare, unemployment insurance, etc. These things have been part of America for a long, long time. Do you agree that these are good policies?

Perhaps the United States has income inequity because some people apply themselves to earning a living and producing more than others? But Marx says that isn't so!

Excuse me, but nobody here is saying something must be true because Marx said it, or anything close to that. Can you please address what we actually say, not what you make up that we say? OK?

Are you saying that the orphan on the streets is poor because he didn't work hard enough? Or can you understand that, if nobody else takes care of him, then it is good for the government to have policies to help him?

All you who want income equity as a government policy, please move to North Korea or Cuba and live with what you want. Why do you want to destroy this country?

Please read this thread. This thread is not about making all incomes equal. It is about the growing inequality and what to do about those who are suffering because of it.

 

[MachZer0]

Balderdash. Quit playing games.

You have told us you think all income tax is immoral. You have not told us if you think sales tax, inheritance tax, tariffs, etc are immoral. You have not told us if you think all tax is immoral. Stop playing games.

Do you or do you not think all tax is immoral?

That should tell you something

 

[HonestTruth]

Right, we will never eliminate all problems. Jesus himself told us there will always be poor people. But that does not mean we stop helping.

As I said, increasing everybody's real wealth significantly in our finite world is probably not possible.

But if you could do that, and increase the possessions of the rich astronomically and increase the wealth of the poor slightly, I would still prefer increasing the wealth of the poor at least as much as the rich. And depending on the wealth divide, you run the risk of the poor revolting.

Jesus also told the wealthy to sell all they have and give it to the poor. If the wealthy elites used the over $30 trillion they have sheltered overseas in tax free accounts that would end poverty in the USA. Too bad there isn't the slightest degree of Christianity in these people.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That should tell you something

Sir, you have not told us if you think all taxation is stealing.

I went back through this thread. Not once did you tell us if you think all taxation is stealing. Not once.

You told us you think income tax is stealing and should be eliminated. Do you think all tax is stealing? There are many taxes besides income tax--sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax, for instance.

So please quit dancing and weaving. Your case consists of nothing more than one line zingers that can be reduced to nothing by a simple question. But you ignore the questions and pretend that you answered them.

You could settle this issue with a simple answer:

Do you or do you not think that all taxation is stealing?