I would lose money.
> boils down to "i don't care about them".
Exactly, I don't care about the poor. The only reason we fetishize them is because of Christian influence on society. You go to Japan and Singapore and we always praise them for clean streets. They don't treat the poor well.
If we raise taxes I don't think the people I would be giving money to have similar beliefs or values as I do, I don't think we would ever be friends and given the age we live in, I don't think they are part of my community, even if we live in the same country. Given we have so little in common I'm more sympathetic to people living in abject poverty (that don't live in the US) who truly have no chance of succeeding in this world without help.
If you want the poor to live in hell, move to the UK, the bottom end of the class system is exactly that even with free healthcare.
Where do you draw the line on unproductive? Hitler was a bum until he got into politics after trying and failing to 'be productive' in art. Your metric does not protect you from poverty, you can become ill and unproductive yourself, nor does it protect you from Mao/Hitler. They all became "productive" at some point.
The poor will always be with us, it's not actually possible to draw the line such that they leave.
I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able to output due to social stability. You cannot be entirely decoupled from your environment - and that environment is rapidly globalizing. That's not to say that balance can't become skewed in the future, or that other communities haven't had bad balances elsewhere otherwise. But, its not a one or the other, its more of a balancing act. Some redistribution is likely good - too much is definitely bad.
Specifically, sister comments are arguing redistribution is likely net-positive for everyone at least up to the point of providing basic needs (food, water, shelter) exactly because without those things people become disruptive. To argue that "I/we can fight anyone becoming disruptive" ignores the fact that that fighting takes away from other productive ventures (and not to mention is a wee arrogant).
EG: I can make 100$ of value a day if I don't have to constantly fight for me and mine. Forfeiting 30$ of it makes sure that everyone around me is happy enough not to threaten me. If they were starving and began threatening me (or my tools), my output drops to 10$ because i spend most of my efforts in looking out for myself/mine rather than collaborating. I'm now MUCH worse off than if i participated in some well-moderated redistribution.
If you disagree with the $100-$10 output reduction, i recommend you go try to do the same job you do now in a war-torn or economically repressed country (odds are you won't be able to find it, or it'll pay much, much less). I believe every developed nation has social safety nets precisely because of the economic sweet spot it enables.