Going for the Big Enchilada

[Th'Pusher]

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?

it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.

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?[/QUOTE]

This is an opinion. Back it up.

[DMC]

besides, equitable income distribution is different than forced redistribution of wealth. The goal of a society isn't set in stone. The goal of the individual affects the goal of societies, and to many individuals, becoming financially independent means little if they live in a society where a disproportionate number of people don't have basic needs met even if they work for a living. It's like being retired in Somalia. You want a vibrant society but that doesn't need to be crafted by forced redistribution of wealth. Instead it needs to be based on free market economics. If all that is taken care of, the small portion of unfortunate folks (and there will be some in any system) will be fine as long as "fine" doesn't mean the same quality of life as the fortunate. Else there's no real measuring stick for success. Everyone gets the same thing.

[boutons_deux]

"forced"?

tax law is tax law.

forced?

$10M tax free for a couple, then the rest is taxable income, NOT "FORCIBLY" CONFISCATED.

[DMC]

it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.

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?

This is an opinion. Back it up.

If I snatch your wallet and give it to a homeless person, that reduces inequality. Is that reasonable?

Your first answer to "why is it reasonable" was that it is the law. If that's not an answer then it's just wasted yapping. We know its the law.

I don't need to back it up because it's not an opinion. How many welfare recipients from 20 years ago are now running large corporations and paying disproportionate amounts of taxes? I don't need to prove a crippled can't carry me for the next 10 miles if I carry them for the 1st.

[Th'Pusher]

besides, equitable income distribution is different than forced redistribution of wealth. The goal of a society isn't set in stone. The goal of the individual affects the goal of societies, and to many individuals, becoming financially independent means little if they live in a society where a disproportionate number of people don't have basic needs met even if they work for a living. It's like being retired in Somalia. You want a vibrant society but that doesn't need to be crafted by forced redistribution of wealth. Instead it needs to be based on free market economics. If all that is taken care of, the small portion of unfortunate folks (and there will be some in any system) will be fine as long as "fine" doesn't mean the same quality of life as the fortunate. Else there's no real measuring stick for success. Everyone gets the same thing.

Name me a single society that has not employed some form of forced redistribution of wealth?

[Th'Pusher]

If I snatch your wallet and give it to a homeless person, that reduces inequality. Is that reasonable?

straw man. I'm arguing for limited wealth transfer through tax policy.

I don't need to back it up because it's not an opinion. How many welfare recipients from 20 years ago are now running large corporations and paying disproportionate amounts of taxes?

i don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, which is why your opinions need to be backed up.

[Axl Rose]

Name me a single society that has not employed some form of forced redistribution of wealth?

Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

[Th'Pusher]

Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.

[DMC]

straw man. I'm arguing for limited wealth transfer through tax policy.

I'm using your criteria for "reasonable". So now you've added "limited wealth transfer through policy". All that's missing from my example is policy, since your wallet is limited.

i don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, which is why your opinions need to be backed up.

You made an assertion without evidence. I don't need evidence to disagree with it.

[DMC]

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.

Just another non-specific claim using general terms like "most" and "some extent".

You really are just winging it, aren't you.

[DMC]

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.

it's not reasonable because it's law, that was simply a statement of fact. It's reasonable in my opinion because it reduces inequality.

You don't know whether to or go blind.

[Th'Pusher]

Just another non-specific claim using general terms like "most" and "some extent".

You really are just winging it, aren't you.

you're the one who is arguing for zero forced wealth redistribution, even though you can't provide a singe society in the history of civilization that has ever implemented such a policy successfully.

I'm arguing for limited forced wealth redistribution through tax policy in an effort to reduce inequality. There is plenty of data to back up my position.

You appear to be the one who's winging it.

[baseline bum]

Name one single society that has redistributed that wealth to foreign nationals, and allows many welfare recipients to collect and not produce? We have generations of career welfare recipients living in our inner cities

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and s are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

[Th'Pusher]

You don't know whether to or go blind.

Nothing you quoted cotridicts the fact that I think the current law regarding estate tax is reasonable because it works to reduce inequality.

[CosmicCowboy]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and s are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

Most of the employers victimizing the Mexican illegals are Mexicans themselves.

[boutons_deux]

Most of the employers victimizing the Mexican illegals are Mexicans themselves.

So American citizens underpaying, stealing illegals' wages, raping illegals, etc is not a problem. Glad to know. thanks

[Axl Rose]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and s are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

I agree arrest the unpatriotic sons of es, we need everify and strict penalties

[Axl Rose]

Most Western European countries do this to some extent.

Yeah and Europe is in the ter. Once great nations are suffering stagnant growth and massive youth unemployment. I'm seeing articles in mainstream outlets these days talking about coming civil unrest/war. Europe is a great example of why it's a bad idea

[HI-FI]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and s are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

Agree. It helps to have wing stop plus Timmy anchoring the d. Also, I don't have a problem with seasonal workers, I just think the current policy is insanity unless you're a globalist elite. GOP is purposefully out of touch with their base, they're happier playing good cop/bad cop with the Dems imo.

[CosmicCowboy]

So American citizens underpaying, stealing illegals' wages, raping illegals, etc is not a problem. Glad to know. thanks

I didn't say that you stupid . I said the worst abusers of illegal mexicans are legal mexicans.

[z0sa]

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.

"believe" in climate change

[boutons_deux]

I didn't say that you stupid . I said the worst abusers of illegal mexicans are legal mexicans.

... minimizing the white guys who abuse illegals. I bet a majority of the Mexicans who abuse illegals are employed by or contract to your white buddies.

[Wild Cobra]

... minimizing the white guys who abuse illegals. I bet a majority of the Mexicans who abuse illegals are employed by or contract to your white buddies.

That's why I say jail anyone who gives an illegal a job.

[spurraider21]

You know, I'd take the GOP more seriously on immigration if they pushed for jailing people for hiring illegals. You gotta combat illegal immigration both at the border and in the workforce, but the GOP only seems to care about punishing the Mexicans taking the jobs and not the Americans giving them. I would allow seasonal Mexican workers for our agriculture though, as American food is so cheap relative to the rest of the first world and s are a big reason why. But make them pay FICA without getting the benefits (since they're not citizens).

if that was the case, Trump's "because you'd be in jail" quip would apply to himself

[spurraider21]

"believe" in climate change

we have to get used to this with the donald in office. if tillerson is involved in policy