I would like to thank my worthy opponent ownbestenemy, tothetenthpower, and ATS for allowing this debate. And please forgive my tardiness. Apologies
Wealth redistribution. The term brings many things to many people.
To some, such as my opponent, it is the just form of taxation and allotment of funds to further benefit society. He has stated that wealth
redistribution has happened since man has formed government and society.
To others, it is the means of taking something that you have not earned. A mandated "theft" justified by the needs of a few within society.
As my opponent stated, wealth redistribution benefits all. That is where he is wrong.
Taxes benefit all. All taxes are wealth redistribution, but not all wealth redistribution is taxes.
A classical example of so-called wealth redistribution is the February Revolution
the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas and started the downfall of the House of Romanov
Wealth redistribution, as we now are experiencing it, holds those same classic undertones of insinuations of greed, criminal activity, a social meme
of punishing success. It is a justification of theft. There is no thought as to what happens after the wealth is redistributed. Because the goal is
not to better society, but simply to benefit the few.
The current situation that we are seeing defines wealth redistribution as simply changing names on bank accounts.
This benefits no-one. Thus, cannot be considered the same as taxes which helps and enables a society.
This only harms society as it disrupts the very mechanisms that create opportunities for those of a middle class to survive and thrive and operate.
Wealth redistribution is an angry reaction to a disparity in wealth. But society can be blamed for the disparity as it creates an entitlement
mind-set that enables more and more to feel justified in simply taking, instead of earning.
I offer this as a counter and humbly await your response.