Let's tell that to companies that take value created by workers and give it to managers. "Michael Cembalest, J.P. Morgan’s chief investment officer, has calculated that reductions in wages and benefits were responsible for about 75 percent of the increase in corporate profits between 2000 and 2007." http://prospect.org/article/if-labor-dies-whats-next

Obviously, we do have this right, and all of modern society assumes it. Libertarians love to talk about "at the point of a gun," but, then, this would have to apply to all taxes. As soon as you agree to any level of taxation -- say, for defense or public safety or to build highways -- then you've conceded this right.

All that's left to argue about is how much and what for.

Enumerated rights and obligations versus assumptions pulled out of thin air.

The Constitution of the United States lays out that the government defends us with a military, builds and maintain roads, and enforces the laws it sets. This is done through taxation. The Constitution doesn't enumerate that it can take your money and give it to someone else because they have less.

> and enforces the laws it sets.

Then all they would need to do is pass a law, saying that we are taxing X to give some benefit to all citizens. Which is, in fact, correct. That is how it works, and it is perfectly legal and moral, as long as all citizens are treated equally under the new law.

I'm a little tired of the basic/universal income trope myself. The problem with Socialism/Communism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.

Saying you're tired of basic income then quoting thatcher has a bit of irony

That said.. you forgot capitalism in your little list

https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/biggest-startup-failures/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

When government gets in the way of capitalism you get what you've referred to. Every single one of these issues came about due to government policies or laws.

And Maggie was awesome!

I am unsure what you are implying with your comment which leaves me thinking your claims are baseless.. would you mind defending the validity of your claims by elaborating and providing sources supporting your opinion?

Exactly. Last I checked in this country, we have a Constitution to protect our rights as citizens and individuals, and this used to include the right to private property.

Demanding A gives to B because B doesn't have what A has, and forcefully doing it through government is a fundamental violation of that right.

I'm adding this to my list of "things capitalists say that inadvertently support communism".

That's a pretty pessimistic take.

You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide that we will not allow our poor and underprivileged to be impoverished so that a few billionaires can die with a little more in their pile. It's not a demand of the proletariat, it's the middle and upper class deciding that they want a more egalitarian society because it has a higher utility.

I sure hope those billionaires agree with you, because they're under no obligation to stay while the rest of you decide how much more of their assets to take.

I mean, I hope you're right. Because if not, this kind of policy is basically sprinting toward having a society of people with no market-useful skills and a strong sense of entitlement. That may be egalitarian, but it doesn't sound like a "higher utility" to me.

Those billionares wouldn't be billionares without taking advantage of the infrastructure and support of the country they made their money in. So they've already taken from you - from your taxes.

This is their opportunity to repay their governments for those advantages.

This in no way addresses my points.

No that's just hyperbole without any basis in reality. Those poor and underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed. Poor people in the USA aren't even poor by world wide standards.

You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It's absurd to say that "because there are poorer people in (I'm assuming you are referring to) Asia/Africa/Central America, we should make no further effort to help". We should help them because they are our neighbors and it's our moral imperative.

It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their need for aid.

> underprivileged can already find aid when/where needed

Mostly via the government, through food stamps, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. So the precedent is already there, and already consumes somewhere near 2/3 of your taxes today. Charity provides comparatively little for your average poverty stricken family.

If Paul got his wealth off the back of Peter and the government they both keep in power, is it theft to want Paul to help Peter when he can no longer work?

May you never become old, or disabled to the point where you can't work, lest you encroach on the free will of everyone around you by drawing upon Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security.