distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

[blackangst1]

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.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest of Americans gave more to charity than the US Government did.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

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.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest of Americans gave more to charity than the US Government did.

Why should the US Government give to charity?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: blackangst1

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.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest of Americans gave more to charity than the US Government did.

Why should the US Government give to charity?

Depending how one defines it, I'd postulate that the Government spends far more on Charitable type work in one year than many years of all Private Donations combined.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CrimsonWolf
Because a good chunk of the population is very generous with other people's money.

This.

See, I used to be really liberal about this stuff back when I wasn't making a ton of money. But I worked hard, put in the time, and now I'm successful (relative). I donate money monthly to organizations that *I* see as important. I don't want my taxes to go up so the government can bail out stupid companies that are going to fail anyway. F that. I would rather spend my money the way I see it fit.

Now, to the people who make a ton of money and don't donate any of it to those in need (whether organizations OR individuals), F you. But I definitely don't want the government making those decisions for me.

 

[JS80]

Welcome to democracy, where 51% can vote to steal from the other 49%.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JS80
Welcome to democracy, where 51% can vote to steal from the other 49%.

That's Old Skool. Nowadays it's so that 5% can Lobby to steal from the 95%.

 

[First]

Because this isn't the 19th century. We've been pretty successful with progressive tax systems.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: blackangst1

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.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest of Americans gave more to charity than the US Government did.

Why should the US Government give to charity?

Charity as in, those who apperantly cant help themselves.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

WSJ Op-Ed about CA

California will only generate more tax revenues through new businesses and jobs, and that will require a tax rate much lower than its top marginal rate of 10.55%. With 50% of Golden State income tax revenues coming from the richest 1% of residents, the state needs lower rates to avoid revenue boom and bust. The liberal obsession with income redistribution has destroyed California?s tax base. (Memo to President Obama, if he?s paying attention.)

I wonder how many people get a freaking free ride in this state. Plenty of people get a free ride in this country too. Then the solution is to keep raising taxes on the rich huh? And when the economy goes sour, incomes get slapped hard because these are the CEOs who then elect to take $1 salaries, and these are the businesses that then face 50% revenue losses etc etc etc.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: CPA
Envy

This.

 

[tk149]

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."

Government mandated morality. Awesome! Isn't this what a lot of Republicans want?

Y'know, maybe someday in the far off utopian future, someone could invent an organization that would help out poor people. Until then, we absolutely must rely on government to force people to "give" to the less fortunate.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: 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?

Balance as it is to mean in this context- enough moneys in the lower layers of the economy to viably sustain health, well being, skills and reasonable existence in retirement, maybe even an annual holiday.
A fair return on productive output would be my point in question and the ability to exist against predatory capital, something that makes Carmens and genos post a possible reality.
One man with a 100mill isn't as good to a local economy as 10 men with 10mill.
The rational of the mega wealthy is to make life hard for the modest so they will either die out or in-fight instead of looking at the real causes for their hardships.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: 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?

Balance as it is to mean in this context- enough moneys in the lower layers of the economy to viably sustain health, well being, skills and reasonable existence in retirement, maybe even an annual holiday.
A fair return on productive output would be my point in question and the ability to exist against predatory capital, something that makes Carmens and genos post a possible reality.
One man with a 100mill isn't as good to a local economy as 10 men with 10mill.
The rational of the mega wealthy is to make life hard for the modest so they will either die out or in-fight instead of looking at the real causes for their hardships.

So how would you do it then?

Balance as it is to mean in this context- enough moneys in the lower layers of the economy to viably sustain health, well being, skills and reasonable existence in retirement, maybe even an annual holiday.

So how would do it? Via taxes, then redistribute the monies via government grants and programs? Send those at lower levels a check? And would you treat everyone equally? In other words, would the guy who works 80 hours / week get the same bennies as the guy who is on and off again employed, working less hours, but making the same money? How would you reward those who work harder? And how would you define that?

One man with a 100mill isn't as good to a local economy as 10 men with 10mill.

Perhaps. But again I ask, how do you do that?

The rational of the mega wealthy is to make life hard for the modest so they will either die out or in-fight instead of looking at the real causes for their hardships.

Absolute and utter bullshit. I have met at least 100 people who make in excess of 10 mill/year, and personally know 10-15 who do, and this is absolutely bullshit.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: 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?

Balance as it is to mean in this context- enough moneys in the lower layers of the economy to viably sustain health, well being, skills and reasonable existence in retirement, maybe even an annual holiday.
A fair return on productive output would be my point in question and the ability to exist against predatory capital, something that makes Carmens and genos post a possible reality.
One man with a 100mill isn't as good to a local economy as 10 men with 10mill.
The rational of the mega wealthy is to make life hard for the modest so they will either die out or in-fight instead of looking at the real causes for their hardships.

So how would you do it then?

Balance as it is to mean in this context- enough moneys in the lower layers of the economy to viably sustain health, well being, skills and reasonable existence in retirement, maybe even an annual holiday.

So how would do it? Via taxes, then redistribute the monies via government grants and programs? Send those at lower levels a check? And would you treat everyone equally? In other words, would the guy who works 80 hours / week get the same bennies as the guy who is on and off again employed, working less hours, but making the same money? How would you reward those who work harder? And how would you define that?

One man with a 100mill isn't as good to a local economy as 10 men with 10mill.

Perhaps. But again I ask, how do you do that?

The rational of the mega wealthy is to make life hard for the modest so they will either die out or in-fight instead of looking at the real causes for their hardships.

Absolute and utter bullshit. I have met at least 100 people who make in excess of 10 mill/year, and personally know 10-15 who do, and this is absolutely bullshit.

Dude you ask too many questions.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Dude you ask too many questions.

Well, apparently enough people support this, and think its possible (LOL!) makes me wonder WTF everyone is smoking. I guess we all have dreams *shrug*

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Britney spears isn't the poster child for the wealthy, she's just what happens when an out of control child gets there hands on some money.

The vast majority of wealthy are very frugal, after all it's the constant pursuit of increasing their wealth that made and kept them wealthy and frivilous spending doesn't suit their purposes. Many of them are downright penny pinchers and the stories of their miserly actions are legandary

I've worked for and with many wealthy people in my career and I can tell you the one thing they all have in common is an intense drive to increase their wealth. Wealth is a drug stronger than crack cocaine the more you have the more you want. And when they overdose and realize they have more than they and their families can spend in 100x lifetimes they become philantropists ala Gates and Buffet.

I believe our history shows quite clearly that the best periods of growth and prosperity for the general economic came during times when the marginal tax rates where highest on the wealthy. The mechanics of how this happens is pretty simple, when marginal tax rates increase with income levels the incentive becomes stronger for business owners to reinvest and expand their companies and keeping their personal incomes more reasonable to avoid honerous tax levels.

Take the example of a business owner thats making $750k per year and is paying $300k in taxes. And suddenly his business booms and his potential income level jumps to $3mil per year.

Under current rates his overall effective tax rate will go up only slightly and he would pockect near $2mil after taxes

Under a system like we had in the late 60-s early seventies based on 2010 income levels where the max marginal tax rate is very high, he might get to keep $750k of the $3mil

It's easy to see that in the second schenario that reinvensting the bulk of the $2mil into growing the business for your heirs and employees becomes a better option than increasing your personal income by a few hundred thousand.

Reagans "trickle down" economics promise that if you let the wealthy keep more of their income that it would create more jobs is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American public. History shows the only thing that forces this "trickle down" is progressive taxes.

If you want to talk about redistribution of wealth compare compare 1970 to now using any metric you want, and you will see a huge portion of the countrys wealth has moved from the middle class to the elite 1% of the polulation. One of my favorites is income disparities just look at CEO salaries as a ratio to the lowest paid worker or min. wage 1970-2009, or look at the same ratio between pro athletes and movie actors and general income levels for the same time period.