Going for the Big Enchilada

[Wild Cobra]

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/res...e-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.

I don't like wealth redistribution. It is one of several factors that reinforces the concept people can be lazy, and not aspire to better themselves.

[DMC]

A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/res...e-spirit-level

an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.

Shocking. You're saying that because people aren't as successful in their hunting, they don't have as many furs or as much meat, Because they didn't till the land they don't have a successful crop and because they settled for stick huts, they don't have secure stone dwellings, and because they don't have things with which to barter, they cannot convince others to come to their rescue.

Sounds like natural order to me.

However your suggestion is to take the furs, the meat, the stone dwellings and bartering materials from the successful hunters and farmers and gatherers, by force, and give them to the unsuccessful people so that they all have the same amount of things.

Of course, the hunter won't be as successful if he has to lose most of his hunt, and the farmer will till less and plant less and reap less if his goods are being taken by force, and the gatherers will only gather enough to avoid forced seizure of their goods. People won't put in more energy than is profitable just for the sake of those who put in none, especially people they have no vested interest in helping, just for the sake of socialism.

You obviously don't know human nature nor the pitfalls of socialism.

[Wild Cobra]

Sounds like natural order to me.

Yep.

Some people can simply afford better care. Only the basics should be an en lement. Not the costly things. We allow too much en lement today, and need to scale back 70% or more.

[DMC]

Yep.

Some people can simply afford better care. Only the basics should be an en lement. Not the costly things. We allow too much en lement today, and need to scale back 70% or more.

There should be no en lement other than rights. No one should be forced to provide basic needs for anyone outside of their own family.

[Wild Cobra]

There should be no en lement other than rights. No one should be forced to provide basic needs for anyone outside of their own family.

I agree with the specifics of what you said. However, taxation is for the betterment of this nation, and that also means the people. I will fight against being too generous with "other peoples money," but remember. I said "basic" en lements. I see nothing wrong with small generosities.

[DMC]

I agree with the specifics of what you said. However, taxation is for the betterment of this nation, and that also means the people. I will fight against being too generous with "other peoples money," but remember. I said "basic" en lements. I see nothing wrong with small generosities.

Taxation for what you use is one thing. I use roads, bridges, and the military is a required force to enable us to even exercise freedoms. Taxation to give others "basics" is just a lower level of socialism.

I see nothing wrong with generosity either. Look up the definition of the word. Forced wealth redistribution isn't generosity. Charity is generosity. I am a fan of charity, but not forced wealth redistribution.

[Wild Cobra]

Taxation for what you use is one thing. I use roads, bridges, and the military is a required force to enable us to even exercise freedoms. Taxation to give others "basics" is just a lower level of socialism.

Yes, you are correct. Should there be a pure ideological political affiliation? Is it wrong to take the best attributes from all?

I see nothing wrong with generosity either. Look up the definition of the word. Forced wealth redistribution isn't generosity. Charity is generosity. I am a fan of charity, but not forced wealth redistribution.

I am a great fan of charity as well. The government often gets in the way of that as well.

I am not a fan of our over-bloated government, and want to see a serious overhaul. What's wrong with free immunizations, free basic diagnosis and remedies, and to ease a person's transition through death?

Is that too much of a tax burden?

[Wild Cobra]

Keep in mind. I am an opponent to things like Obamacare. I just want free basic services. If a person breaks their leg, should it be treated no better than 16th century medicine if a person is unemployed?

[DMC]

Keep in mind. I am an opponent to things like Obamacare. I just want free basic services. If a person breaks their leg, should it be treated no better than 16th century medicine if a person is unemployed?

It should be treated. It shouldn't be treated for free. Do you want to give your work away for free because people are unemployed? Otherwise why look for a job if you can survive without one?

[DMC]

Yes, you are correct. Should there be a pure ideological political affiliation? Is it wrong to take the best attributes from all?


I am a great fan of charity as well. The government often gets in the way of that as well.

I am not a fan of our over-bloated government, and want to see a serious overhaul. What's wrong with free immunizations, free basic diagnosis and remedies, and to ease a person's transition through death?

Is that too much of a tax burden?

Immunizations are "free" because of the ramifications of not having them. Its not a charitable gesture. Nothing is free, only free for certain people. Others have to foot the bill. Immunizations are like the military; the alternative is more costly so it's a preventive maintenance cost that I'll gladly pay to avoid that alternative. What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?

[spurraider21]

Immunizations are "free" because of the ramifications of not having them. Its not a charitable gesture. Nothing is free, only free for certain people. Others have to foot the bill. Immunizations are like the military; the alternative is more costly so it's a preventive maintenance cost that I'll gladly pay to avoid that alternative. What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?

they might make you share a bathroom

[Wild Cobra]

What is the negative ramification for not paying for someone's braces or sex change?

I'm not considering that basic care.

Do you?

[Th'Pusher]

However your suggestion is to take the furs, the meat, the stone dwellings and bartering materials from the successful hunters and farmers and gatherers, by force, and give them to the unsuccessful people so that they all have the same amount of things.

Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

[CosmicCowboy]

Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

The unabashed envy of wanting estate confiscation on the death of a couple just amazes me. Honest hardworking people work and save all their lives to support themselves through retirement and hopefully leave something for their kids and grandkids. Advocating stealing this from them is just disgusting.

[Th'Pusher]

The unabashed envy of wanting estate confiscation on the death of a couple just amazes me. Honest hardworking people work and save all their lives to support themselves through retirement and hopefully leave something for their kids and grandkids. Advocating stealing this from them is just disgusting.

Don't be so emotional. around .1% of the population pay the estate tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't be so emotional. around .1% of the population pay the estate tax.

So you don't have a problem with the existing estate tax?

[Th'Pusher]

So you don't have a problem with the existing estate tax?

Not particularly. Average estate tax paid is ~17% on assets greater than $5.3M for infividual and $10.6M for a couple. Seems reasonable.

[DMC]

I'm not considering that basic care.

Do you?

That's the point. No two people have the same ideas about "basic care". You say broken leg should get treatment for free if you are unemployed, but if you are underemployed? So you work your ass off but get billed everything you make for a broken leg. You should have quit your job, gotten treated then found another job.

These resolutions encourage gaming of the system. It's happening now and it's happened in the past. So sure, broken leg should be treated, but not for free. A person should receive a bill.

[DMC]

Strawman. I'm not arguing for complete equality, but find value in things like a progressive tax system or an estate tax to reduce income inequality as it has been established less inequality leads to a better quality of life for the citizens of a society.

If your preferred system of absolute zero wealth redistribution is such a great idea, name me a single historical example of it being implemented successfully. If it's natural order, all societies should gravitate towards it and history should be littered with examples.

You have really bad arguments and red herrings and logical fallacies of all sorts. It's so sloppy that it's almost indistinguishable from a poorly crafted troll attempt. On one hand you don't want to define "successful society" yet on the other you want to separate specifics of wealth redistribution but only after your initial offering is deemed too sloppy to make any real point. Now "better quality of life for.." is considered "successful society" even if it's only for those who fell below the average. Somehow the quality of life didn't improve for those expected to sacrifice more so that those who earn less can have a better quality of life. I suppose the society is only those who fall below the average.

Unsurprisingly those who preach that kind of ideology are the those who aren't required to sacrifice if it came to fruition. You'd likely benefit from it.

You're always free to give everything you have to the poor. If you don't, then you really just want "society" to fix it for you, while you act as a remote viewer.

[DMC]

Not particularly. Average estate tax paid is ~17% on assets greater than $5.3M for infividual and $10.6M for a couple. Seems reasonable.

Reasonable based on what, your apartment?

[Th'Pusher]

You have really bad arguments and red herrings and logical fallacies of all sorts. It's so sloppy that it's almost indistinguishable from a poorly crafted troll attempt. On one hand you don't want to define "successful society" yet on the other you want to separate specifics of wealth redistribution but only after your initial offering is deemed too sloppy to make any real point. Now "better quality of life for.." is considered "successful society" even if it's only for those who fell below the average. Somehow the quality of life didn't improve for those expected to sacrifice more so that those who earn less can have a better quality of life. I suppose the society is only those who fall below the average.

You're not saying anything. you haven't made a credible argument for your preferred system of zero wealth redistribution.

[Th'Pusher]

Reasonable based on what, your apartment?

It's current law, and as I mentioned previously, I think it works toward reducing inequality. That's a good thing imo. If you have an issue with the law, state your case, or better yet, call your senators and congressman.

[DMC]

It's current law, and as I mentioned previously, I think it works toward reducing inequality. That's a good thing imo. If you have an issue with the law, state your case, or better yet, call your senators and congressman.

Goddamn you have horrible reasoning skills. Something is reasonable because it's law? So there's no such as an unreasonable law? Maybe because it was approved it became qualified as reasonable?

Forced redistribution of wealth does not reduce inequality because the source of the wealth continues to be the same folks and they will always be more important to the system than the takers. You can always replace takers, there's an endless supply just lining up for free . Try replacing the providers. Where's your equality now?

[rmt]

If people believe in wealth re-distribution, please feel free to give away YOUR money. Likewise, if you believe in climate change, why don't you give up YOUR car and ride a bicycle or walk. Just don't force me to give up what is MINE.

[DMC]

You're not saying anything. you haven't made a credible argument for your preferred system of zero wealth redistribution.

I didn't argue against wealth redistribution. I argued against forced wealth redistribution. Capitalism is wealth redistribution, as it pays based on supply/demand. Free market system distributes wealth. You're arguing instead for forced wealth redistribution, taking from someone and giving to someone else, simply because that someone else is less fortunate or simply lazy.

There are plenty examples of failed socialist experiments. Do you own legwork.