Let's put this one to bed. TAXES.

[FederalRepublic]

People generally don't "give" things in capitalism.

Basically, yes, the wealthy need to foot the bill on social welfare programs. But those programs prevent the United States from winding up like a third-world country, with a mobile mass of unskilled laborers. It's better for the wealthy that they pay more taxes than for the United States wind up like a third-world country.

The war on poverty has been so successful...

 

[FederalRepublic]

I don't think it's that simple.

Depends on how you define greatness and what period you are talking about. A society can exist with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the few and be very successful in terms of how it relates with other nations, but it's a transitional state. Eventually, the people on the lower rungs will want some of the wealth and power, and will refuse to comply with social and economic norms if they don't get it. Thus, child labor laws went out the window, public education became the norm, unemployment subsidies were instituted, etc.

The United States was a powerful nation at the start of the 20th century, but not egalitarian.

Wealth and power being concentrated in the hands of the few is not new and it's not transitional. Having a few government officials decide the distribution of wealth does not solve that problem. It further concentrates power and wealth, so why would you advocate that?

 

[Paschendale]

How about we just stop wasting the money we do have with beaurocratic nonsense, funding benefits to huge corporations, fighting pointless wars, and porkbarrel politics?

Only a fool actually cares what percentage of the money goes into taxes. The real point is whether or not you get what you're paying for. To a regular person, it truly doesn't matter where one gets what one needs, so long as one gets it.

 

[TurtleDude]

How about we just stop wasting the money we do have with beaurocratic nonsense, funding benefits to huge corporations, fighting pointless wars, and porkbarrel politics?

Only a fool actually cares what percentage of the money goes into taxes. The real point is whether or not you get what you're paying for. To a regular person, it truly doesn't matter where one gets what one needs, so long as one gets it.

most of those in the top 2% don't get what they are paying for

 

[ptif219]

How about we just stop wasting the money we do have with beaurocratic nonsense, funding benefits to huge corporations, fighting pointless wars, and porkbarrel politics?

Only a fool actually cares what percentage of the money goes into taxes. The real point is whether or not you get what you're paying for. To a regular person, it truly doesn't matter where one gets what one needs, so long as one gets it.

What do we get from wealth redistribution?

 

[ptif219]

most of those in the top 2% don't get what they are paying for

You mean the 50% of the population that pays taxes.

 

[Psychoclown]

Sadly, I don't think anything is going to put to rest the stupid argument that libertarian = anarchist. If I had a dollar for every post by some idiot that used Somalia as an example of a libertarian state, I could probably retire.

 

[TurtleDude]

What do we get from wealth redistribution?

more people addicted to public handouts believing others have a duty to fund their existence and they vote for politicians who enable their entitlement mindset. Its a growing malignancy that started with the New Deal. Dem politicians subsidizing the increase of voters dependent on Dem politicians

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean the 50% of the population that pays taxes.

yeah that is true but its the top 2% that fund far far more than they get. about 6 months or so ago some study came out claiming that until someone was making about 117,000 a year they most likely were getting more government services than they paid in income taxes. this was reported on at least 6-7 news shows I heard at the time. Those in the top 2% are all above that level so they are most likely clearly net tax producers

 

[Morality Games]

country.
The war on poverty has been so successful...

Success is relative. The purpose isn't to end poverty. Even trying that would require a higher level of socialism than Americans are comfortable with. It is to stop the United States from becoming like a third-world country by having a large subset of the population decline into homelessness. To that extent, it succeeds.

more people addicted to public handouts believing others have a duty to fund their existence and they vote for politicians who enable their entitlement mindset. Its a growing malignancy that started with the New Deal. Dem politicians subsidizing the increase of voters dependent on Dem politicians

Poor people are (1) inconsistant voters and (2) when they do get to the polls, at least as likely to vote Republican as Democrat. They tend to be culturally conservative.

yeah that is true but its the top 2% that fund far far more than they get. about 6 months or so ago some study came out claiming that until someone was making about 117,000 a year they most likely were getting more government services than they paid in income taxes. this was reported on at least 6-7 news shows I heard at the time. Those in the top 2% are all above that level so they are most likely clearly net tax producers

Value is arbitrary. The price of the U.S. military is fixed to salaries and the cost of equipment and benefits, but if it suddenly went on strike, the ensuing chaos that enveloped the world would probably have Americans and other nations paying tribute.