3 ms·
> Forced redistribution of money to equalize incomes would be an unmitigated disaster Not really. A different balance of taxation would be a form of redistribu
by hxa7241 15y ago
> Forced redistribution of money to equalize incomes would be an unmitigated disaster
Not really. A different balance of taxation would be a form of redistribution of income (and indeed would be interpreted as 'forced' by some). Would that be an unmitigated disaster? Well, it needs checking in the detail, but one suspects that such different tax profiles and hence 'redistribution' existed at various times in the USA's past: the 1960s probably, for example. That is unlikely to be called a period of disaster: it was one of growth and creativity, was it not? If all that happened was going to the moon and inventing the internet, you would have to call it pretty good.
- gwright 15y agoNot really. I'm sorry, but I simply can't take you seriously. you don't understand that the very definition of a tax incorporates the idea of 'force' (hint if it is optional, it isn't a tax) you are confusiong redistribution and/or progressive tax structure with 'equal incomes' you claim without any evidence that the 1960s represented a time when this redistribution was implemented My comment was about the ambiguity of 'equality' without any clarification or context and about the dangers of promulgating 'equal incomes' via forced redistribution. I do not want to live in a world where any individual effort made to raise my income above the average results in the government grabbing my wallet and giving it to someone making no effort at all.