You are opposed to taxes, I believe?
Not at all. I am very much in favour of taxes. I am also in favour of a public healthcare system (but not a social welfare system).
I am, however, against using PC terms to explain why taxes are necessary. If we as a society want wealth to be redistributed, there is no need to refrain from saying that. But I don't trust people who want to redistribute money while claiming that that is not what they are doing. If they refrain from calling it that, it means that don't believe that what they are doing is right.
I am opposed to some types of taxes. For example I am against income tax and value added tax (and sales tax). I would prefer land value taxes, fees for using petrol (which are then used to pay for streets and railroads), and inheritance taxes. I think taxing productivity and economic activity is wrong (morally and economically).
In the US there was a time when we had no income tax. The cost of doing business asw a nation, however, became so great that we needed a way to pay for those costs. Hence Income Tax. We tend to ague over what those costs should be, at what level of government they should be incurred, and how those costs should be distributed across the citizenry.
A structure was made. From that point on, any change is a redistribution of that baseline.
First of all, the cost of doing business as a nation does not have to include social welfare or public healthcare. Building streets and maintaining an army benefit everyone (everybody uses those things) and I have little problem with "the rich" paying more for the privilege.
But when tax money is used for social welfare and public healthcare we begin to use the tax system to redistribute money not from the people to the state (as is proper) but from the people to other people (which is not).
The structure is a mechanism. It does not define property rights.
steve is not redefining the word.
He is redifing the word. If you use the structure of the tax system to take money from some and give it to others, you are redistributing wealth. Whether that is good or not (I think it is not) is one question. Whether we should do it (I think we shouldn't do it a lot) is another. But for me there is no question of what we should call it.
If we _believe_ that taking money from some and giving it to others we _are_ supporting redistribution of wealth. And if redistribution of wealth is right, we shouldn't refrain from calling it such.
Who said government was supposed to give money to some people anyway? I don't want the wealth I create to be used by other people. Unfortunately, once those others are the majority, they don't ask me whether I want to.
You can say that it is the result of a democratic decision.
But so was segregation.