CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.
I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.
CsG
I'm against "Involuntary wealth transfer schemes" PERIOD. Do you even realize what you're saying? "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme"=THEFT. A thug who puts a gun to my chest and takes my wallet is inititating an "Involuntary wealth transfer scheme" with a very specific and clearly defined target (himself) with 100% delivery results. Does that make it alright? Or is it still THEFT?
I say it's still THEFT, THEFT is wrong and should not be ENDORSED, SPONSORED or PERPETRATED by the government who's job it is to PROTECT me from such things.
Jason
Yes, I understand what I'm saying. However, you have to realize that we do have a social structure in place and the gov't does have a limited responsibility for Society. However, as you are well aware - the socialist have taken this "limited" responsibility and have used that opening to put their programs in place.
Have they gone too far? Have we allowed them to go too far? Absolutely, but we do have to allow the gov't to take care of their limited social responsibility.
Now the second part of the equation is more of what I think you were trying to address - the way the funds change hands. Are payroll and income taxes "involuntary"? Absolutely. You don't have a choice in that. However if we went to a more consumer based revenue system, the collection would become less "involuntary".
<-covers ears and waits for the gnashing of teeth and shrill shrieks from the left to start.
CsG