Why "x% of people have y% of the wealth" is irrelevant.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can do it without direct taxation and without interferring in business.

FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED. Funds and wealth are created. (can you not understand that the wealth of today is more than in 1700 AD?) Where did that money come from? Did someone have that wealth stashed away for noone to see? NO IT WAS CREATED!!!! Bill gates did not get rich by taking money from rich people...he provided a product and people bought it. If you do not want him to get richer...dont buy his products.

[GoodCallYouWin]

The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You're making the mistake of treating wealth as if it were an objective, rather than a relative measure.

It really doesn't matter whether the kings and queens were poorer than the janitor in terms of colot TVs and Ipods; because the kings and queens were not acquainted with the janitor. Their point of reference was to the people over whom they ruled.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if a janitor is richer than the monarchs. He's not comparing himself to the kings and queens. He's point of reference is to the people whose toilets he cleans. If he's poorer then them (which is what it means to clean their toilets), then he's poor. Regardless of the queens and kings.

To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, having nothing to lose but their chains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for neatly illustrating that your entire worldview and personal philosophy is based on envy. I couldn't have illustrated it better myself.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree, funds do not need to be redistributed for the poorest 5% to increase their living standard, however they have to be redistributed in order to get that living standard to the point where I find it acceptable. The poor in 100 years time will be richer than the poor today almost regardless of how we run society, I don't disagree with that.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree, funds do not need to be redistributed for the poorest 5% to increase their living standard, however they have to be redistributed in order to get that living standard to the point where I find it acceptable. The poor in 100 years time will be richer than the poor today almost regardless of how we run society, I don't disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow again. Sorry not to add much, just want to emphasize the parts that just shock the hell out of me. Then again, you are from a Socialist country, so if you hear those things constantly, its hard to think otherwise.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you believe them, but it scares the hell out of me.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of money goes to waste in the redistribution process, I don't disagree with that, its a price I am willing to pay. But all the waste is also a reason to be selective wrt to what the government is supposed to provide, it has to be something important to justify the waste, if it is something unimportant also the poor are better off with the money working in the private sector instead.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, having nothing to lose but their chains (and homes and cars and color TV's) .

[/ QUOTE ]

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer to all this. Let my mom create the federal budget. She could cut about 90% of the budget in a week. America will know what the "needs" of the country are... as when I grew up, mom always met my needs...but not always met my '"wants" ....thats what we need to get back to.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow again. Sorry not to add much, just want to emphasize the parts that just shock the hell out of me. Then again, you are from a Socialist country, so if you hear those things constantly, its hard to think otherwise.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you believe them, but it scares the hell out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have lived also in a non-sosialistic country, so it is not like it is my only reference point. We also have non-socialist media and political parties, so it is not like we are indoctrinated. It is a matter of values, there is a conflict between the rights you feel entitled to as an individual and the rights I feel that the individual next to you is entitled to.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. I am not an extremist aka. communists or such, but I don't believe you have a 100% right to keep what you earn/have. I understand that taxing too hard is both hurting the economy and also crossing a moral line. But I believe that the boy next door is more entitled to your money for food and schoolbooks if he/his parents can't afford than you are too them for your own consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't agree to that I am willing to use force to make it happen anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point.

PS. Why isn't the boy next door entitled to *your* money, and why don't you just hand it over instead of using force to take someone else's? My opinion is that the "compassion" that underlies this flavor of socialism is a hollow, empty compassion. The socialist doesn't actually care enough about the poor and the downtrodden to get off his duff or reach into his own pocket; he would rather stay on his duff and have a man with a gun reach into someone else's.