Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill
To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy.
The distribution scheme we have currently is significantly from wealthy (and working class) to poor such that the poor pay negative taxes and working earners pay taxes. If a tax cut is "redistribution" it is really just a reduction of in current redistribution.

The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case.


A neat thing about this is that in a capitalist market economy, it can't be the case that the wealthy do well and the non-wealthy do not. The wealthy would do only as well as the working and vice versa. An example for this is that for a business owner to make money he needs workers to produce, and in order for workers to produce they need business owners to pay them. A relatively free market economy raises the benefit for all because of this.

What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?
I was calling the accusation of sexual assault highly suspicious before Moore even commented on it. This is because I follow politics closely and we see false accusations emerge with this timing often. Other facts for how they emerged make them even more suspicious. Then when the main accusation was shown as tampered, confirmation that the accusation was false hit all time high.