Actually, if you had read my complete reply you would know that I did understand what you were responding to.

Taltamir was absolutely right.

And I stand by what I said:

Now, do you have anything to add to that?

He wasn't narrowing the definition. He just gave a definition.

"Redistribution" is a form of "distribution".

What's your problem with his definition? Cannot use it for propaganda?

Arty, you are referring to people trading labour for money and goods for money voluntarily. That is not what we are discussing here.

If anybody has a better definition, please speak up.

But it sounds rational to me that "redistribution of wealth" is the act of X taking money from Y to give to Z.

I apologize for any confusion.

I was using the analogy of a hypothetical Mr. Ford and his factory workers to illustrate that if wealth is distributed between a larger segment of the populace, society benefits more than the "king of the hill" model in which a small number of people sit at the top of a massive hill and "trickle down"  a few crumbs to those at the bottom.

Since we can only expect to function reasonably as a society of laws and NOT a society of men, the distribution of wealth needs to be legislated, not left to volunary means. This works both ways as it protects BOTH parties as opposed to leaving this distribution to the whims of a rabid marxist who would redistribute every last cent equally between working and non-working folk and a robber-baron capitalist who would go by the "winner take all" mentality in which the CEO takes home a cool hundred million paycheque and lives in a gated mansion while the surrounding town is a barrio!

Yes, voluntary is fine but there are very few Mr. Fords and very many Jeff Skilling's and Ken Lay's.

Do you expect people to submit voluntarily to such a system?

Wealth redistribution includes any benefit someone receives at the expense of others, even if it's just at a state level. If my money pays for a school or a park for people that didn't pay anything you have x taking money from y to give to z. Even if you had flat tax the wealthy would still be having money taken from them and given to others.

You, taltamir and others are narrowing the term to only include an increase in the level of wealth distribution by the increase of the progressive tax system. That is only part of the definition and the one who's ignoring the complete meaning of a term is the one is the one trying to make that term fit their agenda.

There are strong arguments on both sides of the flat tax progressive tax argument. The tipping point for me is a flat tax increases an already increasing wealth divide and I and others have explained why we feel that is bad for our society.

That's just hyperbole.

I did respond, I said most would choose not to make even less than resulted from the tax increase.

Yes. And your point is?

What?

Unfortunately that is not true.

No.  And no one has come up with a good reason why they should.

No, it is the truth. It is the time value.  If I get $100 for the first 40 hours a week I work, but only $20 for each additional hour, I am going to do other things with my time than waste it working.  It is basic economics.

No they are not.  Try spending your drivers license.

And beleive it or not they were smart enough to realize that, and provide for it.  That is why we have 27 amendments to the document they created.  There is a right way and a wrong way.  The wrong way (I know this is going to come as a shock) is never the right way.

Hold spending (note not cut - but to liberals that means a cut) at a fixed level and let revenues catch up.  The problem is not too few taxes, but too much spending.  A foreign concept to many I am sure.

There might be, but what does it have to do with what the taxes are used for?

And I am absolutely right, it does decrease the incensitive. Will it decrease it enough to make everyone work less? no, but it will make SOME people work less. How many depends on how much you increase it. hence "lower incentive" and not "destroy the incentive".

You seem to not grasp what redistribute means. If I am taxed more lightly then a richer person for a service we both receive, say police protection, and we receive it to differing amounts, and the government has a legal monopoly on that service, then no redistribution occured. Every USAGE of funds is technically a DISTRIBUTION of funds... Redistribution of wealth means the government takes MONEY from party A and give to party B. "Distribution of WEALTH" as you call it can only be used on a graph to show how much money each person has (like the one posted earlier); so I am a bit baffled why you decided to change its definition to mean redistribution of wealth and redifining that as taking less from the rich then you did before (but still more overall) and use it to provide a service to everyone..

It shocks many.

Quote of the day .

Here is a better one, try spending "local police budget per citizen" / "college subsidy" on beer and smokes.

If the rich are taxed more heavily to provide better police protection it is quite different then if they are taxed more heavily to give someone a check.

Or maybe they're motivated to find a way to make that 40 hrs worth a $110 an hr.

It is irrelevant whether or not I can spend it, if someone pays for anything that I need that means I don't have to pay for it. Money saved is money gained.

You guys seem to be hung up on only including direct transfers of cash as a means of redistribution. You act like Obama is going to enact this new policy instead of just an increase in an existing one.

Again deciding how much taxes and what they're used for is what the election is all about.

What? that statement has nothing to do with taxation.

No, we are just disturbed by the need to HIDE and lie about it as if obama and his supporters KNOW it is wrong. It would be a lot less disturbing if they didn't juggle words but instead tried to explain why they support such a notion.