Libertarianism and Redistribution of Wealth

The libertarian rent that any property gained though employment or communication channel is none that they ar fully entitled to is false, therefore the claim that the redistribution of that wealth through gross Is a trend of theft Is also false based on the grounds that no one fully proclaims in alone of their wealth. The reason that no one fully avows on the whole of their wealth is that we live in a club where legion(predicate) aspects of our economy that contribute to the generation of wealth be paid for by fraternity as a whole. An role model of this is a youngster who goes to school.This child go forth graduate knowing how to read, write, do math, persona computers, etcetera. These argon whole skills required both for them to permit Income and for future employers o profit from. These skills allow employers to exact them knowing that they can have a basic train of panorama of this child, and even If they are not employed, business owners can also assum e a basic level of expectation in the capability to do the products being sold. To clarify, lets look at an example using Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world.Bill Gates would never have become moneyed if he did not have the basic expectation that the majority of people in America had the direction and knowledge to use computers. He did not wages for this knowledge, nine of magnitude as a whole did. The concomitant that society Is responsible for educating our people to the basic level required for the use of Bill Gates products Is the reason wherefore Bill Gates does not fully own all of his wealth. Again, to own something is to assume that you are fully Bill Gates owes part of his wealth to society for the education it volunteerd which allows us to use computers.Another reason wherefore people do not completely own all of their wealth Is that we all owe something to the organization who protects our wealth and our ability to gain wealth. The establishment leaves guarantor from outside influence in the world, laws which govern our business practices to protect us from each other, and allows the environment in which we are adequate to perform business. Because of these reasons we all owe the establishment because we are subject to take payoff of the clay that our government has provided.Since the affluent are able to take a much greater ripe of this system, It Is natural to assume that the stiff also owe more to the government than do the poorer and middle family unit citizens. The fact Is that we live in a society in which we are not paid for the application we do or for the product in which we provide to society as a whole. Instead we are paid based on how well we are able to take profit of the systems in place. This system allows for unfair favours for some and the only way to sense of balance out those unfair advantages is through taxation.As I nave calmer Deter, 10 wangle purpose AT taxation In ten TLS place Is as a civil wrong of redistribution of wealth. Services expect to be paid for and the government must have money in order to run. Taxation allows the government to redistribute wealth in a fashion which should be fair (though many clock is far from fair) in order to provide the undeniable services for our uncouth to prosper. If our country has alike large of a gap between the wealthy and the poor it also looses the ability create youthful wealth. What I mean is this. The wealthy are able to create wealth by taking advantage of the poor and middle course of actiones.This is not always a bad thing however. Since the poor and middle class marque up the vast majority of the countries population, it is also them who purchase, manufacture, and provide the majority of the products and services offered by the wealthy. The wealthy are able to make money because the anticipate of the countries citizens drop off money. If these citizens have o money to spend there is no money for the w ealthy to make and they must begin to look outside of our country for that wealth. Again, this comes down to the advantages provided by our government which allow for foreign trade and the import and export of goods and services.If the wealthy are to take advantage of foreign trade, they again owe extra to the government, and society as a whole, for the advantage which is provided to them. In the end however, it is simply a good idea to redistribute wealth back to the poorer in our country in order to provide all citizens at the very least an opportunity to stool some of that wealth back from them. Our economy is a never ending circle of exchanges in which the some affluent are able to take the superlative advantage, thus owing the most back to their government and society.I do agree that people have a right to their own property (as long as it was obtained honestly), however, how much property does one really need and to what extent do they really own it. on that point must be a point at which a certain derive of wealth is too much. How many of the richest people in the world will ever be able to spend all of their money? It is basically for this reason that I am against the views hat it should not be the governments responsibility to use taxation as a way to redistribute income.This is in fact the sole reason for taxation in the first place and the reason wherefore the rich pay a higher amount of tax than the poor. This higher taxation is especially necessary in a society such as ours where the average CEO make something along the lines of 400-500 times as much as the average prole (much higher than any other country in the world). I see no reason why we cant increase taxes on the richest in order to adjoin our obligation to the poor, not only at legal residence but across the world.