distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

[1LordEmperor1]

Most people go to work, earn just enough to get by and either buy something nice or save a little bit.

Rich fucks hire someone to invest their money / trade in currency / delegate whatever management responsibilities they have and somehow make more money out of nothing.

Hell, Britney Spears flew her private jet across the country to buy some multi-thousand dollar scarf. What makes her deserve that compared to a guy who works hard every day at a physical job?

Tax the rich bastards more, close the loopholes they use to evade taxes (if someone has $1,000,000,000 on January 1 and $2,000,000,000 on December 31, he obviously made $1,000,000,000 somewhere along the way, it should not matter how).

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

Bingo.

The whole "Jobs!" angle is a bunch of BS. The same People who cut the "Rich"'s Taxes and saw little to no real Job Growth are now claiming that raising those same Peoples Taxes will kill Job Creation. Not sure what Universe they're living in, but in mine they're just spewing unfounded BS.

Didn't we just go through the best 10 year economic period in history with lower Taxes on the rich?

link

Let's see how this data looks after they rollout the "Tax the rich" agenda

You also had a Hug Housing Bubble, a Borrowing Bubble using the Housing Bubble as collateral, and very large Government Deficits. Yet despite all that money flowing through the economy Job Growth was anaemic. AFAIK, the best 10 year period of Economic Growth was still the 1990's, could be wrong and it was on the Internet Bubble, but overall was a better economic climate.

How much lower can an economy go than ~4.5-5.5% unemployment?

And as you admit the 1990s was built on the internet bubble.

Would it be possible to have an unemployment rate of 0%, or near 0%?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's not really quite that simple. In any case, the planet literally does have limited resources so I am for some reasonable redistribution of wealth. Almost everybody is. The debate typically centers around what is reasonable.

Not only what is reasonable, but how to balance benefits such that the plight of the poor is eased, but it is not eased so much that the poor no longer seek to improve their own lives. Dependency is addictive.

True, but nobody stays poor for the tax breaks. One has to take a pragmatic as opposed to ideological approach when dealing with the subject of poverty.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Uh...because most people aren't wealthy? Is this a trick question?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1
Most people go to work, earn just enough to get by and either buy something nice or save a little bit.

Rich fucks hire someone to invest their money / trade in currency / delegate whatever management responsibilities they have and somehow make more money out of nothing.

Hell, Britney Spears flew her private jet across the country to buy some multi-thousand dollar scarf. What makes her deserve that compared to a guy who works hard every day at a physical job?

Tax the rich bastards more, close the loopholes they use to evade taxes (if someone has $1,000,000,000 on January 1 and $2,000,000,000 on December 31, he obviously made $1,000,000,000 somewhere along the way, it should not matter how).

in a word, envy.

oh, and the bolded text is wrong.

 

[mattpegher]

The problem is not the progressive tax rates, since most obscenely wealthy individuals hide most of their money through loopholes.
The problem is most of those loopholes are intentionally there to encourage some financial activity, such as charitable donations, home ownership, and business expenses. So which ones to remove. If you are in the upper brackets and don't play the game your a fool, better to give that money to a charity of your choosing than watch some politician fatten his own pockets with it. I agree many are probably unfair to the rest of us, but the politicians who make these rules use them more than anyone. The ultra-wealthy should have a few special taxes that the rest of us will never have to worry about.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1
Most people go to work, earn just enough to get by and either buy something nice or save a little bit.

Rich fucks hire someone to invest their money / trade in currency / delegate whatever management responsibilities they have and somehow make more money out of nothing.

Hell, Britney Spears flew her private jet across the country to buy some multi-thousand dollar scarf. What makes her deserve that compared to a guy who works hard every day at a physical job?

Tax the rich bastards more, close the loopholes they use to evade taxes (if someone has $1,000,000,000 on January 1 and $2,000,000,000 on December 31, he obviously made $1,000,000,000 somewhere along the way, it should not matter how).

It's SO UNFAIR! LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Uh...because most people aren't wealthy? Is this a trick question?

i'm not wealthy, but i'm not asking for handouts and calling for politicians to pass laws to tax those that have more than me.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1

Hell, Britney Spears flew her private jet across the country to buy some multi-thousand dollar scarf. What makes her deserve that compared to a guy who works hard every day at a physical job?

Do 10000000 people fork over $100 to watch Jose mow the lawn?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1
Most people go to work, earn just enough to get by and either buy something nice or save a little bit.

Rich fucks hire someone to invest their money / trade in currency / delegate whatever management responsibilities they have and somehow make more money out of nothing.

Hell, Britney Spears flew her private jet across the country to buy some multi-thousand dollar scarf. What makes her deserve that compared to a guy who works hard every day at a physical job?

Tax the rich bastards more, close the loopholes they use to evade taxes (if someone has $1,000,000,000 on January 1 and $2,000,000,000 on December 31, he obviously made $1,000,000,000 somewhere along the way, it should not matter how).

Obviously an example of one who either has no talent, ambition, ingenuity or brains. So what else can one do but take from those who do?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not much Lower, but it still struggled to Employ those coming into the Workforce. Then there's the Issue of those who just gave up and were excluded from that figure.

If they were entering the workforce and not finding work that would be reflected in higher unemployment numbers.

The people who gave up are dropped and for good reason. Unemployment is a measure of the employment market. If people arent looking for work they certainly arent part of that market. And if somebody can afford to stop looking, I question if that is a bad thing.

I dont really buy into the whole jobless recovery BS after the 2001 recession. We had a steady decline starting in 03 through 07.

Slightly off topic. It should give one an idea of how long it takes to see employment numbers reflect a growing economy. Lags by a good 12-18 months.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

Bingo.

The whole "Jobs!" angle is a bunch of BS. The same People who cut the "Rich"'s Taxes and saw little to no real Job Growth are now claiming that raising those same Peoples Taxes will kill Job Creation. Not sure what Universe they're living in, but in mine they're just spewing unfounded BS.

Didn't we just go through the best 10 year economic period in history with lower Taxes on the rich?

link

Let's see how this data looks after they rollout the "Tax the rich" agenda

You also had a Hug Housing Bubble, a Borrowing Bubble using the Housing Bubble as collateral, and very large Government Deficits. Yet despite all that money flowing through the economy Job Growth was anaemic. AFAIK, the best 10 year period of Economic Growth was still the 1990's, could be wrong and it was on the Internet Bubble, but overall was a better economic climate.

How much lower can an economy go than ~4.5-5.5% unemployment?

And as you admit the 1990s was built on the internet bubble.

Would it be possible to have an unemployment rate of 0%, or near 0%?

No, frictional unemployment will always account for something. I have heard frictional alone accounts for 3-5% unemployment at any given time. Meaning when you hit 4-5% unemployment you are considered at full employment.

 

[Engineer]

If it means that I get to pay less....I'm for it!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

This is a good argument. The problem is the means to the end. A dictatorial government which owns its dependant people is as far removed from a free nation as the Soviet Union.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

This is a good argument. The problem is the means to the end. A dictatorial government which owns its dependant people is as far removed from a free nation as the Soviet Union.

Why don't we let the people with the money decide if it is any less valuable to them than it is to you.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

This is a good argument. The problem is the means to the end. A dictatorial government which owns its dependant people is as far removed from a free nation as the Soviet Union.

fail

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

When does it become conscionable? Once everyone is equally living in poverty? It may make YOU feel better to know you are taking care of someone less fortunate, but it is not your place to assume or force someone else to feel that same way.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

When does it become conscionable? Once everyone is equally living in poverty? It may make YOU feel better to know you are taking care of someone less fortunate, but it is not your place to assume or force someone else to feel that same way.

That is an Idiotic argument against it. You really think anyone is pushing for that level of Redistribution? The US has had much higher levels of Tax on the Upper Tax Brackets and still that didn't occur.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

Unconscionable is a decision to be made by each individual, and the morals of religions have no bearing on the function of this country.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

When does it become conscionable? Once everyone is equally living in poverty? It may make YOU feel better to know you are taking care of someone less fortunate, but it is not your place to assume or force someone else to feel that same way.

That is an Idiotic argument against it. You really think anyone is pushing for that level of Redistribution? The US has had much higher levels of Tax on the Upper Tax Brackets and still that didn't occur.

I think your Caps lock key is On the Fritz. Anyways, it really is the argument. What are the extremes? One person controls all the wealth, the rest have 0? Then 2 people, and all but two are poor? Or a ruling oligarchy of .1% and the rest poor? At what point does it become conscionable? Because whatever justification you can give, you can twist it for just one more person. The only end is when there is no more wealth to distribute.

 

[irwincur]

No, frictional unemployment will always account for something. I have heard frictional alone accounts for 3-5% unemployment at any given time. Meaning when you hit 4-5% unemployment you are considered at full employment.

I believe that 4.8% or so is considered to be 'perfect employment'. It rarely goes lower than that and to get there you are essentially scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Fox5]

I'm all for redistribution of wealth for public welfare programs. Soup kitchens, libraries, highways, and the military are good. Stimulus and welfare checks are bad.
If there is a need, meet it directly. Don't redistribute wealth directly hoping things will work out.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Special K
Do the poor even make enough money to cover all these services through taxes?

I think one reason the system is progressive is due to diminishing marginal utility - the more money you have, the less happiness/utility/etc. is bought by each additional dollar. An extra $100 is nothing to Bill Gates, but could pay utility bills for a poor family.

This is a good argument. The problem is the means to the end. A dictatorial government which owns its dependant people is as far removed from a free nation as the Soviet Union.

fail

Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps certain means have unintended consequences.

Isn't dependence just another form of slavery?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Topic Title: distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

Because, in a society as blessed with wealth and resources as ours, it is unconscionable to have a few living in extreme wealth while hundreds, thousands or millions are unable to survive, even some who are fully employed... if they're lucky enough to find jobs, at all.

Most if not all religions teach that we shall be judged by the way we treat the least among us, but it doesn't take religion to understand why. If you have problems with the concept, try to recall what happened to the idiot who, when told that the French peasants had no bread, famously replied, "Let them eat cake."

Unconscionable is a decision to be made by each individual, and the morals of religions have no bearing on the function of this country.

I don't think that, "I have no conscience," is a persuasive argument.