redistribution of wealth

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

once the right-wing lets go of the misconception that "redistribution of wealth" must ONLY mean hard-working Amuricans paying for welfare queens, maybe the US can have a real, honest debate about tax policy.

did you ever think that the phrase "redistributing the wealth" is applicable to giving the rich a substantial tax break? only that we're taking money from the poor and middle class and sending it upstream.

Exactly. That phrase is very much a two way street. Corporate welfare anyone?

So people getting to keep more of thier own money is the same as taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor?

Poor people pay little or no federal income tax. How can they get tax cuts?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

once the right-wing lets go of the misconception that "redistribution of wealth" must ONLY mean hard-working Amuricans paying for welfare queens, maybe the US can have a real, honest debate about tax policy.

did you ever think that the phrase "redistributing the wealth" is applicable to giving the rich a substantial tax break? only that we're taking money from the poor and middle class and sending it upstream.

Exactly. That phrase is very much a two way street. Corporate welfare anyone?

So people getting to keep more of thier own money is the same as taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor?

Poor people pay little or no federal income tax. How can they get tax cuts?

Well...there is this little detail involving the vast majority in the US and we call them the "working middle class" which is exactly what Obama's progressive taxation plans are aimed at. Or did you forget about them?

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: eleison
Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

once the right-wing lets go of the misconception that "redistribution of wealth" must ONLY mean hard-working Amuricans paying for welfare queens, maybe the US can have a real, honest debate about tax policy.

did you ever think that the phrase "redistributing the wealth" is applicable to giving the rich a substantial tax break? only that we're taking money from the poor and middle class and sending it upstream.

Exactly. That phrase is very much a two way street. Corporate welfare anyone?

So people getting to keep more of thier own money is the same as taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor?

Poor people pay little or no federal income tax. How can they get tax cuts?

OK, let's pretend we're in a world where everyone (the poor and the rich) are taxed at a flat 25% rate. let's also pretend that we're in a world where there is no one to work at Blockbuster, Walmart, Applebees, Safeway, etc, etc. oh wait, that would be the same world.

what else... well, there are more taxes than income taxes. you forget social security and medicare. oh, and how about the fact that SS is a regressive tax? i.e. you don't contribute to SS on income beyond $100,000. why should the burden of SS be shouldered by the poor and middle class?

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty short sighted to talk about 'budget' only in terms of pretending that lower taxes always is better for everything. You know what else increases budget? Revenue. Revenue that increases with financially healthy customers who can buy your product. Was Henry Ford a communist or a good capitalist when he pushed for higher wages for workers to be able to buy more products from companies like his?

And there's more to the picture than budget, too. You know something that would lower taxes and increase your budget? Killing sick people who need lots of government help.

But it's not really a good idea. Though you may disagree.

There's more to the budget than taxes. It's easy from your myopic view to fixate on taxes and want to whine loudly about paying them. That's a lack of perspective IMO.

Of course we want policies that support a healthy business environment.

That's different than an extreme, abusive 'give business everything it wants and screw everyone else' policy. You may not be able to tell the difference much.

But what I see is a whole lot of lack of appreciation for the 'good of society' and some compromise by many of the right-wingers defending 'corporate profit'.

It's short-sighted not to invest in the society.

Redistribution of wealth is not the way, my friend... Henry Ford was allowed to build a company that employed countless number of people. Henry Ford was given the freedom to run his company and create jobs. At the end of the day, the government did not force Henry ford to "share the wealth". That's what makes American great. People work hard to achieve there dreams and the government tries to stay out of it.

see, what's funny about this post is that it has useful content. you have no idea what taxes Henry Ford was paying. during the heyday of the Model T, the top marginal tax rate was as high as 77%. the government in fact forced Henry Ford to share a shit-load of his wealth.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Anyway, it's water under the bridge now.

Bush's tax cuts WILL expire.

Glory, glory, hallelujah.

Raising taxes for every American = Glory, glory, hallelujah

:disgust:

Bush tax cuts affect every tax bracket, even the lowest.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: mugs
~~snip~~

You know it's possible that you're both right. His numbers are percentages of taxes paid (e.g. I used to pay $10k/yr, now I pay $7600/yr), your numbers are percentages of income paid as taxes.

There is statistical 'fudge' going on there ...

Not at all.

Which is a better tax decrease - 1% or 4%?
Which is a better tax decrease - 2% -> 1% or 64% -> 60%?

The first guy is only paying half as much as he used to pay, the second is paying ~93% of what he used to pay.

Which of the above questions was more meaningful?

 

[jackace]

Here is one of the biggest things I think people get confused about or combine. When we are talking about tax structure we are talking about who pays and how much. Not what taxes are spent on. If you are upset with where the money is being spent, (i.e. welfare, subsidized housing, etc) that is a totally different issue. The fact remains that America, and/or it's representatives in government have seen fit that certain benefits are going to be provided to the people by the government. How we pay for these benefits is what we are discussing not the benefits themselves.