distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

[CallMeJoe]

If Redistribution of Wealth and Class Warfare Against the Rich are such evils, why aren't the Republicans here railing against that old Trust-Buster, President Theodore Roosevelt? Didn't he start the slide to Socialism when he brought down the Robber Barons?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
If Redistribution of Wealth and Class Warfare Against the Rich are such evils, why aren't the Republicans here railing against that old Trust-Buster, President Theodore Roosevelt? Didn't he start the slide to Socialism when he brought down the Robber Barons?

Because he's been dead for 64 years?

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Via
If I remember the numbers correctly the wealthiest in this country owned 10% of everything in 1980 and own 20% now.

If that's not redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is.

QFT.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and people have the audacity to think that wealth is being redistributed from the top down.

I've got a compromise idea.

For excessive corporate profits, instead of taxing them to nothing or allowing them to flow upwards as 500% bonuses to the top, how about writing a law that forces a certain amount of the profits to be distributed as bonuses to the entire employee base of the company. This way the money stays with the folks who earned it yet more of the wealth reaches more of the people.

If corporations can flow the money up hill they can certainly flow some down hill as well.

Because that would be fair, and that means it's commie, soshulisms, and gh3y. Why do you hate America?

 

[CPA]

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).

Deserve. I love how people, like you, believe that we should police what is deserved and what is not - or what criteria should be used to determine what is deserved. Life isn't fair, no matter how much you thinking taxing rich people will make it so.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
people want to tax the wealthy. recently there was a thread on here capping your income at $10M. why?

if you keep taxing the rich, they'll either find new ways to evade it or leave the country.

Please please please will you all just leave already.

Thank you

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: 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.

Next time, read the post. Each person must decide for themselves what is right for their conscience, it is NOT the place of the government to create legislature for enforcement of morals. That does not mean somebody has no conscience.

Really? REALLY?

I take it this applies to abortion and abstinence-only programs, too, right ?

Absolutely. Abortion is a personal choice, not the purview of a government, nor of any kind of "moral majority" or whatever. Same for abstinence, what a ridiculously laughable concept. Teenagers will do what they want, and pretending you can teach them abstinence and make it stick, or that abstinence is the only "morally right" course, is laughable.

 

[geno]

Without any sort of regulation or brakes on the runaway train of greed, the honest guy in the middle trying to make a buck will just keep getting fucked more and more. The powers that be, the companies we rely on, aren't about to give up a penny even if it means the people they serve, the people who pay their paychecks, will live an easier life. These corporations will raise the price and make your life tougher in an instant if it means they have to take a paycut on the millions if not billions they make. Why anyone would want to encourage this is beyond me. It's not merely capitalism, it's raping people for their own financial benefit and getting away with it. This is not what our country was founded upon. These people are driving your hard earned money either into the ground or into their pockets and keeping it there. I'm not anti-corporation, but something has to regulate the greed.

No one deserves a handout or a free pass, but middle America foots the bill for everything. Gas prices go up, the middle class takes the hit. Taxes go up, the middle class takes a hit (we don't get to pay someone to evade them like the rich folk do). It's getting out of control and something has to be done to slow it down. Capitalism is turning into "survival of the fittest" where one person will cut your throat if it means their survival. That is not a way for a civilization to exist, one big pile of animals with each struggling and stepping on another to get to the top. That is what America is turning into because of greed and worship of the dollar. No one cares about just living a good life and being good to those around you.

Wow, that sounds pretty wignut-ish of me, but that's how I feel :/

 

[Carmen813]

Our country is really way, way to obsessed about wealth. Until our politicians on both sides realize that money does not lead to happiness, we will continue to debate silly topics such as this. We should be aiming for a more equal society and worry about instilling some core values that actually mean something, rather than envy and greed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
[ ... ]
2) Top tax bracket and tax burden are two different things. While under the Bush tax cuts the top tax bracket dropped, tax burden on the rich has INCREASED. So one could argue that you cut taxes on the rich, but the rich are paying more overall. So while you argue this is a tax rate cut, if the rich are paying more, this isn't really a tax cut on the rich anymore. ...

I'm not going to take the time to dig up Acanthus' paper and wade through your whole rant line by line. Based on the fallacious reasoning above, however, I'm inclined to assume you failed to prove your point. If Bill used to pay $10M in taxes on $100M in income and now pays $20M in income on $500M in income, that is a tax cut by any rational definition. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
If Redistribution of Wealth and Class Warfare Against the Rich are such evils, why aren't the Republicans here railing against that old Trust-Buster, President Theodore Roosevelt? Didn't he start the slide to Socialism when he brought down the Robber Barons?

What does trust busting and enforcing that a free market exists have to do with redistribution of wealth?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

2) Top tax bracket and tax burden are two different things. While under the Bush tax cuts the top tax bracket dropped, tax burden on the rich has INCREASED. So one could argue that you cut taxes on the rich, but the rich are paying more overall. So while you argue this is a tax rate cut, if the rich are paying more, this isn't really a tax cut on the rich anymore.

If they are paying a lower % of their income into taxes, it is a tax cut, period. Makes no difference that they are paying more of the overall % of taxes being paid, they are still paying less than they would have been paying under the old bill.

Conversely, if the rich tax bracket had went up by 10% and their burden (vs the overall amount of taxes being paid) had went down by 1%, would they be receiving a tax cut? Let's raise taxes on the rich 1% and everyone else 2%. That would = a tax cut on the rich by your reasoning. (It will be interesting to see your answer on this).

 

[Medellon]

P

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

If people had self control and were wise savers there would not be a need for wealth redistribution.

My, my, my. Aren't you just a bit presumptuous? For that to be true, you'd have to assume that everyone with a job is making enough to pay for their lives. That is not the case. There are many people who work full time, some with more than one job, whose total income leaves them below the poverty line.

For those whose lives are only marginally close to breaking even, it takes only one mid sized medical or other emergency to leave them stone broke and unable to continue their lives.

And of course, even in your imaginary world of wise, self controlled savers, with employement ranging from 95 - 15% in an economy where businesses are down sizing and closing, there are those qualified and formerly employed people who currently have no job.

All of that is sad. When, at the same time, some of the very Wall Street robber barons who gave us the current economic catastrophy are picking up their mega buck bonuses and golden parachutes or crying about it if they can't. There is no excuse for that.

There are people who came by their wealth honestly through good work and contributions to society. I don't begrudge them their wealth, and given the opportunity, I'd gladly join their ranks, but I wouldn't object if some part of my good fortune was allocated to providing minimum survival assistance to those who are unable to do so on their own.

Jeez would be willing to read for at least two seconds and read the rest of my comment? Give the book it's 5 chapters and not misunderstand what I'm saying? If everyone in the economy that was able were saving, prices would be kept in check-- there wouldn't be enough consumption for companies to be able to justify raising prices. If everyone were being wise with their money, then when the housing bubble reared its head and the monthly payments required to own a home diverged from the normal ratio (ratio to cost of renting), more people would have started renting and the bubble wouldn't have gotten very far in the first place. With personal responsibility, there is nothing for the Wallstreeters to exploit. Greenspan could have lowered the rates all he wanted but it wouldn't do anything if people were still saving in inflation-adverse assets.

I'm talking about macro stuff here-- bringing it down to the level of the individual has no place in your rebuttal. If everyone were being wise with their money then that would provide plenty deflationary pressure; companies simply wouldn't be able to raise prices. This is basic economics Harvey, you're trying to oversimplify it with an appeal to emotion using an argument about individuals living a stressful life. Two years ago I was working a full time job and 2 part time jobs (office cleaning 5 days/week after my full time job, and then doing painting two days/weekend). I understand where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is still true. The problem is systemic; it's not just the Wallstreeters, it's not just the people at the bottom of the ladder like you mistakenly think I'm saying (and blaming), it's everyone all together not being fiscally wise that leads to problems like the one we're in now. Trying to tack it onto a single demographic and fix that with more government is not the solution; it is only begging for more problems.

 

[miketheidiot]

right now, if anything 'redistributive' policy would level the playing field which is currently very stacked toward the accumulation of wealth by those who already have it. Government is just another part of society, and those who benefit from it should pay for it in greater proportion, and government shoudl provide the means for the less fortunate to have a shot as well, whether that means subsidized college educations, food or housing assistance, etc. If you do not wish to be part of a such a system, then its your prerogative not to take advantage of its benefits.


The original reason for government assistance goes back to the revolutions of the 18th century. Poor people essentially decided that they had nothing to gain from the status quo, engaged in violent revolution to overturn society. To prevent this from happening in the future, and possibly succeeding, they were essentially bought off. (if you want to be a cynic about it)

 

[Moonbeam]

We milk cows not rabbits.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DLeRium
[ ... ]
2) Top tax bracket and tax burden are two different things. While under the Bush tax cuts the top tax bracket dropped, tax burden on the rich has INCREASED. So one could argue that you cut taxes on the rich, but the rich are paying more overall. So while you argue this is a tax rate cut, if the rich are paying more, this isn't really a tax cut on the rich anymore. ...

I'm not going to take the time to dig up Acanthus' paper and wade through your whole rant line by line. Based on the fallacious reasoning above, however, I'm inclined to assume you failed to prove your point. If Bill used to pay $10M in taxes on $100M in income and now pays $20M in income on $500M in income, that is a tax cut by any rational definition. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Sorry I think what I mean is basically this:

You can have a 91% tax rate but we all know that's an outlier. Not many people pay that. Today's top 35% tax bracket is not an outlier. Sure it may be the highest we got, but a bunch of people are now lumped in there.

When you talk about cutting taxes for the rich, does this mean cutting taxes for the bulk of the people we label as wealthy? Obama seems to think this is the top 5% as stated by his usual 95% talk. Or do you mean simply changing the top tax bracket? 91% back in the day obviously didn't affect many people.

Your example is misleading. I'm not talking about a huge growth in income and leading to a reduced rate but a absolute increase in gross taxes.

You can chart the top tax bracket, but I think that has shortcomings. The top tax bracket covers a different number of people through the years. I guarantee you more people are under the 35% tax bracket now than were in the 91% tax bracket back in the day.

So essentially you could lower the top tax bracket but raise overall tax revenue by tinkering with the lower brackets. Thus to chart the top tax bracket doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't you rather chart income taxes from the top 5% of Americans versus all the other parameters he wants to talk about?

I mean this is essentially looking at how progressive our tax system is and the distribution of incomes and tax burdens. I think to chart the TOP tax bracket and compare that against other things is just wrong because this is just a flawed way to look at data. It's like looking at the rainfall on the heaviest raining day each year to determine your overall rainfall each year. How can you take one day (even if it's the stormiest rainiest day of the year) to characterize the overall rainfall of the season? It's shortsighted and so is looking at the top tax bracket rate.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wealth redistribution should happen "naturally". That is, redistribution should be done by taxing luxuries. The more outrageous the luxury, the more the tax. Necessities shouldn't be taxed much, if at all. Income taxes are a ridiculous way to tax wealth because it becomes a game of "who has the best accountant" to avoid them, and people will do things like shell corporations, alternative legal entities, bank accounts in other countries to avoid it.

Flat tax everyone (well, more or less... do a very simple tiered tax) and jack up the luxury taxes and everyone wins.

I'd be fine with that, only if you include property and nearly all forms of investments as luxuries.

Mmm, not sure I agree with you on property. Maybe if you create an exception for each person to own one single-family home at or below the average price point for their market. That prevents people from losing their homes if they can't afford property tax, but would tax people who own more than one home on their extra properties. Everybody gets one freebie to live in if they could scratch up the purchase price, more than one property is considered "luxury".

 

[Craig234]

OP, your lack of understanding of rht topic of 're-distribution of wealth' is clear from the vague OP.

What are you talking about - who would lose wealth, who would gain, what would the reason be, all questions you don't answer.

It's funny that with the actual policies on this, most here would be on the 'receive' end, but most think they'd be on the 'give' end.

Excessive concentration of wealth moves closer to where a few own everything, and everyone is unable to 'own' the means of production (they can own a house and tv). Less concentration of wealth still does all the useful things - people get more for earning more - but competition increases, opportunity increases, ownership diversifies.

At the low end, having*any* minimum wage prevents terrible poverty, prevents a lot of wage deterioration for people even above the minimum - and technicall it's 'wealth re-distribution'. It also by those people having money to spend, fuels the economy, creating wealth.

Allowing unions prevents people from having wages fall one person at a time since they need income and don't have leverage as individual workers. It's also technicall 'wealth re-distribution'.

You seem to just have the 'guy in black suit comes to your house, takes a $20 bill out of your pocket ("at GUNpoint", as righties like to add for the drama) and hands it to your neighbor' fear.

Do you like the idea of the US having a third-world economy with mass poverty, or the idea of a US with a strong middle class and less poverty? If you like the latter, you are going to need to get used to some 'wealth re-distribution' IMO. But the good news is, it's not what you're scared of, again IMO.

I saw a statistic this week that the top 1% earners in California pay 50% of the income tax. That's not because their rate jumps from 9% to 99% - it's because they make such concentrated high incomes. Are you in that group? I didn't think so. Oh, and they're still in the state, to debunk another right-wing myth.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
A long term trend line on cyclic data is perfectly acceptable. All it shows is that private investment has slowed overall since the '60s despite an enormous tax cut for the rich since that period. You cant draw any other conclusions from a long term trend line on cyclical data...

The paper goes on to find what does drive the economy, public and private investment. The graphs and data show that very clearly.

You are playing the "god exists because you can't prove he doesn't" card. If it doesn't do anything, then tax cuts for the rich are not driving the economy. Thus, through basic 5th grade level logical thought... You can conclude that the tax cuts are not necessary.

I would like to see data on how much private investment is in fact the poor and middle classes 401ks, vs. hedge funds, corporate, and other private investment. I honestly do not know what the ratio is.

Economics truly does approach epistemology. You can consider all of the thousands of variables all you want... The fact is, the data doesn't add up to verify the claim that supply-side economics works in any form.

The cyclic data swings wildly with a standard deviation of 10%. It's very hard to make a trend chart out of that and conclude that personal investment has slowed.

No I'm not playing the "God exists" crap. Who says you can conclude tax cuts aren't necessary. So you'd rather pay 91% taxes then?

You're trying to compare personal investments with the growth of the industry? Versus government spending? Government spending in the 90s was nowhere as high as it is now. Yet the economy saw a huge growth. Your charts are completely deceptive.

1) What is personal investment? Stashing my money under the mattress? Putting it in a savings account? 401k? I don't think people argue that tax cuts are designed to increase these activities to stimulate the economy. As you write in your paper, tax cuts for the wealthy allow them to invest and create jobs. So does your investments cover people creating businesses? Starting businesses? Expansion of businesses? Etc etc? Why don't you define what your "investments" figure entails. If it doesn't cover businesses investing money, rich people starting companies, rich people buying more, consumers consuming which also stimulates the economy, then OBVIOUSLY your data will exclude all the spending that stimulates the economy.

2) WTF is government investment. Government spending? Spending on infrastructure? Military spending? War on Iraq?

You conclude that government spending is the only effective way of affecting GDP because the graphs line up. How retarded is that?

Statistics rule #1: Correlation does not imply causation. Could it be because in times of economic trouble (low GDP growth), the government can't invest as much? Your paper doesn't address anything. You line two graphs up and you jump to a conclusion.

So if I showed a graph with ice cream sales going up and murder rates going up, would you be able to conclude that ice cream sales drive murders up? Your line of reasoning seems to follow that.

Sorry but what was this paper written for? The 8th grade? For AT P&N to read? For what purpose? Because it shows a very limited understanding of logic.

You can't say Reaganomics doesn't work because graphs don't line up. And then conclude your theory does because graphs do. You look for data to disprove theories, not the lack of data.

Look at the healthcare debate. Some people say the US has great care (cites cancer survival rates), but others say we do not (cites life expectancy, infant mortality). You cite data that directly shows certain things. You have shown data that doesn't show anything.

 

[Cogman]

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).

Would you rather that Britney spears didn't spend her money? Her private jet pilot, air crew, scarf manufacturers, ect all thank her for spending her money in that way. I would rather see extravagant stupid spending by the rich then no spending at all. Its the hoarders that really hurt everyone else.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk
One of the best arguments for redistribution is that you want to avoid extreme classes differences in the population and maybe even to avoid undermining the democratic system (if certain are so poor, hungry and uneducated you have to question whether they can really participate in our system). I think dramatic class differences are a concern, but I also believe that a fair free market system (we don't completely have that now) could address those concerns too.

I didn't answer the poll because it's overly broad.

It's not just broad, but ambiguous. Wealth distribution which way? Most posters here are assuming it means wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor since that's the popular right wing talking point. The simple fact is, however, we already have a system that is fundamentally slanted towards redistributing wealth from the less wealthy, particularly the middle class, to the wealthy. Strangely the folks attacking "wealth redistribution" see no problem with that at all. Indeed, most probably accept it as the only acceptable way for the system to work.

The real question is where is the proper balance between distributing wealth upwards and returning it back downwards. The right loves to cry that if that balance falls too far towards downwards, it becomes "unfair" to the wealthy, and can ultimately erode the drive to move the economy forward. That certainly can be true, though we're in no danger of that today. As you point out, when the balance shifts too far the other way, towards too much upwards redistribution of wealth, the resulting gap between the classes undermines democracy and can ultimately lead to equally damaging economic problems. Given the fairly dramatic shift in wealth over the last 30 years, I'd say it's pretty clear where the balance falls today.

That's a fair analysis, but what can be done to restore wealth balance?

 

[Red Irish]

Curious: I would venture that most of the people posting in this thread would support the military policy of "nobody gets left behind"; however, when the context is economic rather than military, the poll illustrates that most posters advocate a laissez faire approach, wherein individuals are expected to fend for themselves.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
When 90% of the resources are controlled by a small minority of the population, it means there is a problem with the way society is functioning. It's no longer the land of the people, it's the land of the serfs and lords.

except there is nothing stopping anyone from becoming a "serf and lord".
by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, you are just encouraging the poor to continue to be poor and lazy.

and taxing from the rich is not going to stop them from being rich. the rich will continue to be rich and the poor will continue to be poor, until they wake up and decide to break this cycle on their own.

reap what you sow.

Then what was the point to your thread?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk
One of the best arguments for redistribution is that you want to avoid extreme classes differences in the population and maybe even to avoid undermining the democratic system (if certain are so poor, hungry and uneducated you have to question whether they can really participate in our system). I think dramatic class differences are a concern, but I also believe that a fair free market system (we don't completely have that now) could address those concerns too.

I didn't answer the poll because it's overly broad.

It's not just broad, but ambiguous. Wealth distribution which way? Most posters here are assuming it means wealth distribution from the wealthy to the poor since that's the popular right wing talking point. The simple fact is, however, we already have a system that is fundamentally slanted towards redistributing wealth from the less wealthy, particularly the middle class, to the wealthy. Strangely the folks attacking "wealth redistribution" see no problem with that at all. Indeed, most probably accept it as the only acceptable way for the system to work.

The real question is where is the proper balance between distributing wealth upwards and returning it back downwards. The right loves to cry that if that balance falls too far towards downwards, it becomes "unfair" to the wealthy, and can ultimately erode the drive to move the economy forward. That certainly can be true, though we're in no danger of that today. As you point out, when the balance shifts too far the other way, towards too much upwards redistribution of wealth, the resulting gap between the classes undermines democracy and can ultimately lead to equally damaging economic problems. Given the fairly dramatic shift in wealth over the last 30 years, I'd say it's pretty clear where the balance falls today.

That's a fair analysis, but what can be done to restore wealth balance?

Define balance?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Cogman

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?

Would you rather that Britney spears didn't spend her money? Her private jet pilot, air crew, scarf manufacturers, ect all thank her for spending her money in that way. I would rather see extravagant stupid spending by the rich then no spending at all. Its the hoarders that really hurt everyone else.

:thumbsup:

Emphasis on a smart post.