distribution of wealth? why are people for this?

[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.

why should the rich subsidize the poor?
doesn't that remove all motivation for the poor to better themselves and come off of welfare and food stamps?

i don't see why the rich are penalized for being successful through progressive taxation. they don't use social services any more than poorer folks so why should they pay more for it?

 

[MotF Bane]

This thread is going places.

 

[CPA]

Envy

 

[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.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

Because a good chunk of the population is very generous with other people's money.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CPA
Envy

/Thread

 

[TruePaige]

Survival.

 

[her209]

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

And if you mess up, declare bankruptcy.

 

[Mursilis]

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

This.

 

[StageLeft]

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.

 

[Strk]

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.

I really hate hearing the argument about "for the poor." The poor get handouts for just about everything. Pop out a few kids and you'll get more in food stamps than most people who pay with their own money spend on groceries. Free health care? Of course! Subsidized housing and numerous other entitlements.

The people who get screwed are the lower middle class. A family of four with a household income of $40-60k (location can make this one vary, but it's a good estimate) will get nothing, but will have to work a lot more to make ends meet so that they don't milk the government.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: CPA
Envy

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[MovingTarget]

Wow, there is a lot of ignorance in this thread about the poor. A large and powerful middle class is what makes this nation economically strong. Also, an equitable distribution of wealth prevents power from getting too concentrated. Too high a concentration of wealth and democracy falters. Nobody wants a repeat of the robber-baron era, but it seems that we are headed more and more in that direction.

 

[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.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
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

1992 - 2001 looks better.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Progressive taxation is the most fair way to do it. But politicians use it for class warefare to gain votes.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: fisheerman
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

1992 - 2001 looks better.

Couldn't be true, tax rates were higher on the upper brackets

 

[sandorski]

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.

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: CPA
Envy

Envy and control.

 

[alchemize]

Somehow if you you are poor and you desire a rich person's wealth, that's not greed. It is only greed when it's vice versa.

I sense a wall of text being built somewhere

 

[dphantom]

It is easier to take from someone who has than to do for yourself.