OK simple terms...raising taxes higher on certain individuals solely based on their success at a number at which a government says is justified to subsidize individuals who are less successful also knows as equity redistribution or creating a false sense of financial equality in mass.

Taxation in pure form is done to in essence to fund infrastructure and military power, not social ills (i.e. medicare, ss, etc)

Simple, your either for it or you aren't.


Since you haven't picked a position yet, my guess is your attempting to validate wealth redistribution in your mind :dunno:

So the underlying questions is actually "are you in favor of raising taxes" based on your feedback.
I believe raising taxes and wealth distribution are two different things- don't you agree?

Oh lord, just vote yes already :rofl:
No they are not the same. If you had said "raising taxes on just one group deemed by the government" then I might have said "sort of" :) Raising taxes on certain groups to cover social equality moves by the government is not 'raising taxes'.

Wealthy Americans buy goods and services which create jobs. Inner city Welfare recipients and the chronically unemployed spend a disproportionate amount of their cash on booze, drugs and cigarettes.

Give an educated/successful guy more of his own money and he will spend or invest that cash. Give someone who has made poor decisions all of his life more money he did not earn and chances are that cash will be wasted.

Cynical I know but what some of you don't realize is I know from experience. Both my mother and father were welfare cheats and heroin addicts. I've had to overcome the odds and work hard to get where I am today.

Funny that everyone so far has answered no, but these were Obama's words to "Joe" the plumber;

"It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Too funny. :rofl:

Though not mine, I thought this was an interesting opinion.

As is usual in discussions of public policy one can cut through a lot of posturing if one asks the question "who's ox gets gored?" In other words, are those objecting to change going to be negatively affected by the changes. It is obvious that the wealthy and their dependents (apologists, lackeys, and beneficiaries) potentially stand to lose the most. One should thus examine their arguments in this light. Those favoring redistribution are usually the poor so it is clear that they will support any position that potentially gives them more.

We in the US need to decide if we are going to slip into an inefficient oligarchy, risk civil unrest or redirect our resources and wealth into more equitable avenues. No society is perfectly egalitarian, but when we have reached a point where the top one fifth in Manhattan makes $350,000 and the bottom fifth makes $7,000 we are probably near an economic tipping point. How we deal with the coming challenge is up to us.

A just society is an equitable society, an equitable society is a just society.

Depends on how you're viewing equality, apparently by the dollar :dunno:

Since I appear to be standing alone, I figured I better explain my response.

The best form of wealth redistribution I can think of is charity. Yes, I believe in charity. That is what caused me to answer yes to the poll.

Theft and fraud also qualify as wealth redistribution. No, I don't believe in those.

Taxation is wealth redistribution. Taxation schemes that have the wealthier pay more make sense to me. No, I don't think that taxation should be so extreme that businesses stop being in business, or that the wealthy are not motivated to work. I just think that asking every member of society to pay exactly the same dollars in taxes isn't a workable concept, so in that sense yes, I believe that taxation should redistribute wealth.

Extreme questions will produce extreme answers. The debate lies in the interpretation. I also like Quicksilver's post just above this one.

JCL, the wealthier should be taxed higher??? WTF. Glad you live in Canada brother :rofl:

So success ==> you support others by force

I guess if everyone worked at the same level that could work....but that is NEVER true.

Wonderful :tsk:

The word Quick used was equitable, not equality.

How about equitable inequality as a concept?

Sorry, getting off topic here, but IMO there is a fundamental difference between equitable and equality.