Spread the Wealth

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think we should change certain practices in the country. For instance we need to outlaw Tax Abatement for rich megacorporations. The average guy can not fight for lower tax, buth then your city turns around and offers a giant tax abatement for some company as bribery. So if there was a federal law outlawing tax abatements, then everyone would be on an even playing field, and the little guy could get a fair shake. But hell, things are so corrupt, that we have to play games with snake oil salesmen.

100% Agree. My company right now is planning a move, to get a new 15 year abatement. State law will not allow a city to give an abatement to a current business, so we are moving a few miles down the road to get the abatement, where they are building us new buildings. Mean while the 500K square feet of office space built for us 10 year ago in our current location will be left empty, probably for a long time (not too many companies need that much space right now).

Also the city that we are moving to is going to start charging people a 1% local income tax that'll bring in 1.5M a year, to "offset the $300K/year abatement" to my company. So they are going to bring in 5 times the amount of tax money to offset a loss of money they never had to begin with, not to mention the benefit of having 7500 engineers working in the area.

In Tulsa, American Airlines got the city to by all of their buildings and lease the building back to them for ONE FUCKING dollar a year. And buy city I mean the people that pay sales tax in the City.

Don't forget getting free electricity at the expense of the ordinary citizens too.

My rates went up immediately after the announcment.

The Pensacola Dam on Grand Lake is supplying the cheap power.

 

[soulcougher73]

A lot of the things we take for granted in this country are socialist ideas. Fire Depts, Police Depts, and Libraries. I can only imagine how bad it would be if those were privately ran companies.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Wow, nice scare tactic. How many times do I have to show you the federal budget before you freaking understand it? If you combine DoD and GWoT budgets, it is greater than all the money spent on unemployment, Medicaid, and welfare. You can view the relative amounts here. Less than 12% on welfare and unemployment. And, in case you didn't know, employers pay an unemployment tax for their employees to ensure people who lost their jobs can collect. That's right, it isn't welfare, it's money collected to be dispensed at a later date.

Why don't you actually go look at the data instead of getting all upset about something you know nothing about:
Federal Budget Outlays

Federal Budget in Millions 2008 Estimate (in millions)


Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and related programs 17,059

Unemployment insurance (UI) programs 34,095

Interest paid on Treasury debt securities (gross) 241,103

Department of Defense?Military:
Military personnel 117,549
Operation and maintenance 221,661
Procurement 126,143

Your only argument is Medicaid:

Medicaid grants 206,886

Of course, Medicaid covers a lot more than just "the people that don't deserve it." Many of those covered by Medicaid are children (an estimated 19.7 million out of 42.9 in 2004 to be exact). Medicaid covers almost 60% of those living in nursing homes as well. And before you chime in with, "Well, why should I cover the mistakes of some adults? Let's punish the adults by letting the children suffer," let's investigate actual costs. Providing health insurance via Medicaid is actually much cheaper than the alternative.

Regardless, you could fully fund Medicaid and TANF for a cost less than what is paid on the interest on our debt. If you visit this site, you'll see war appropriations for 2008 approach 200 billion.

If you subtract the children and elderly from the Medicaid + TANF spending, you'd see that indeed more money is spent in the GWoT than is spent on the "irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society." That is, unless you consider the children and residents of rest homes to be irresponsible deadbeats and dregs. Who knows what they teach you on Fox News though.

Seriously, did you even bother to look at any of the facts or figures that I've ever posted on these forums. Did you ever give them serious consideration? Or do they give you an "ignorance badge" at neocon school that permits you to ignore all facts and reason?

Now add in SCHIP for all the states that cover adults with the funding, and any/all state/local spending on The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society.

 

[Stiganator]

The problem with their bonus system is that they set the bar so low in terms of goals, that the CEOs needn't even show up and they would meet their goals. This is true for most executive positions. Many times get a bonus the size of their yearly salary each month, if production stays on schedule. That means, they get a bonus for doing what they were being paid to do. I understand bonuses for times where someone does above and beyond what is called for. Say a worker figures out how to save a million dollars a month on the manufacturing line, he should get a bonus. It wasn't his job to optimize that it was his job to assemble it. Above and beyond. A typical executive goal (goals are created by the executives) might be increase profit by 0.5%. Considering any stable company would probably do that on its own, this guy gets an extra million for doing jack shit.

All that money given away as bonuses is shareholder money and should be used to make sure the company is financially stable before anything else. Look at the big financial companies now, still giving out money hand over fist even though they don't have any. Now the tax payers are giving them more money. At one point I think it as JPMorgan, gave out more money in bonuses than the company was worth, WTF!

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every successful society spreads the wealth including the US.

Next.

That does not make wealth redistribution right, why should anyone who has earned a four year degree and busted his butt to make his fortune have to give up a share of it so it can be handed to someone who never even bothered to graduate high school?

Why should that same guy be forced to give up a share of his fortune just so Obama can give it to poor countries whose people do little or nothing to try and better their own selves, usually just the opposite?

He shouldn't, like all other life on this planet it is survival of the fittest any deviation will end in disaster.

The other downside;
Obama has many rich starting to make moves now with the assumption he will get elected like moving their wealth and dealings out of the country. Others like the Miami Dolphins owner is selling the Dolphins now before Obama gets elected and he raises the capital gains tax.

The rich will avoid his taxation by every way possible; he will NOT get the funds he is expecting and further pound the middle class for it causing irreparable damage to that segment of society.

There has to be some form of wealth redistribution in a capitalistic society. If there is not eventually the majority of the people end up poor and a hand full of people control most if not all the wealth.

For me I would rather see regulations on wages and health benefits so ALL full-time workers make enough money they do not need the hand-outs to survive. IMO if you make your fortune paying people subpar wages and forcing them to go get government hand-outs to survive then the government subsidized your business and your fortune. Where I live that is almost every major employer. They move here specifically for the cheap labor costs.

Where I live employers think $8-$10/hr and no health care benefits is plenty for most jobs. When rent is $700/month for a 1 bedroom apartment $8/hr doesn't go far. There was also a study done in my area and it found that for a person living on their own with 2 kids they would need to make $18/hr to support themselves with no help from government programs. There just are not many $18/hr jobs around here. So most people are receiving some form of government assistance.


Edit- the problem for American workers has also been compounded because not only are we competing, on fairly equal terms, with other Americans for jobs, but we are now competing with other countries on very unequal terms. Americans can not work for the same wages as people in China or other developing nations. Most European countries have already started protecting their workers, and I think it's about time we do the same.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Bush takes $10 billion of our wealth and redistributes it among military contractors and cronies every month in Iraq.

And even more then that is spent every month on people who most likely dont deserve it. The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society....

Wow, nice scare tactic. How many times do I have to show you the federal budget before you freaking understand it? If you combine DoD and GWoT budgets, it is greater than all the money spent on unemployment, Medicaid, and welfare. You can view the relative amounts here. Less than 12% on welfare and unemployment. And, in case you didn't know, employers pay an unemployment tax for their employees to ensure people who lost their jobs can collect. That's right, it isn't welfare, it's money collected to be dispensed at a later date.

Why don't you actually go look at the data instead of getting all upset about something you know nothing about:
Federal Budget Outlays

Federal Budget in Millions 2008 Estimate (in millions)


Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and related programs 17,059

Unemployment insurance (UI) programs 34,095

Interest paid on Treasury debt securities (gross) 241,103

Department of Defense?Military:
Military personnel 117,549
Operation and maintenance 221,661
Procurement 126,143

Your only argument is Medicaid:

Medicaid grants 206,886

Of course, Medicaid covers a lot more than just "the people that don't deserve it." Many of those covered by Medicaid are children (an estimated 19.7 million out of 42.9 in 2004 to be exact). Medicaid covers almost 60% of those living in nursing homes as well. And before you chime in with, "Well, why should I cover the mistakes of some adults? Let's punish the adults by letting the children suffer," let's investigate actual costs. Providing health insurance via Medicaid is actually much cheaper than the alternative.

Regardless, you could fully fund Medicaid and TANF for a cost less than what is paid on the interest on our debt. If you visit this site, you'll see war appropriations for 2008 approach 200 billion.

If you subtract the children and elderly from the Medicaid + TANF spending, you'd see that indeed more money is spent in the GWoT than is spent on the "irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society." That is, unless you consider the children and residents of rest homes to be irresponsible deadbeats and dregs. Who knows what they teach you on Fox News though.

Seriously, did you even bother to look at any of the facts or figures that I've ever posted on these forums. Did you ever give them serious consideration? Or do they give you an "ignorance badge" at neocon school that permits you to ignore all facts and reason?

Now add in SCHIP for all the states that cover adults with the funding, and any/all state/local spending on The lazy, the irresponsible, the deadbeats and dregs of society.

State children's health insurance fund 6,640

In total. Quite less than:

DoD Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund 8,349

If you have numbers, please post them. Don't be so academically lazy that I have to do all your research for you. Hell, I even posted the freakin budget (not that you even bothered to take a look). Heaven forbid, you ever challenge your own misconceptions.

If anyone here has proven themselves to be lazy and irresponsible, it is you for making broad claims and assumptions without ever having the insight or taking the incentive to look and see if your beliefs were true. Most dangerous kind of laziness I think.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Just because CEO is making more and more does not mean hes doing it at the expense of you and I.

You really believe that?

You dont??

This is for all you fucking dumbasses out there. Click

LOOK! The money supply is not a fixed amount!! Thats means you too can make money even if a CEO is making millions!!

Hard to believe I know.....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is for all you fucking dumbasses out there.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of mental illness.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Just because CEO is making more and more does not mean hes doing it at the expense of you and I.

You really believe that?

You dont??

This is for all you fucking dumbasses out there. Click

LOOK! The money supply is not a fixed amount!! Thats means you too can make money even if a CEO is making millions!!

Hard to believe I know.....

No response to my logical argument above, Nice.

Obviously you know your argument is founded on a mountain of bullshit.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every successful society spreads the wealth including the US.

Next.

That does not make wealth redistribution right, why should anyone who has earned a four year degree and busted his butt to make his fortune have to give up a share of it so it can be handed to someone who never even bothered to graduate high school?

Why should that same guy be forced to give up a share of his fortune just so Obama can give it to poor countries whose people do little or nothing to try and better their own selves, usually just the opposite?

He shouldn't, like all other life on this planet it is survival of the fittest any deviation will end in disaster.

The other downside;
Obama has many rich starting to make moves now with the assumption he will get elected like moving their wealth and dealings out of the country. Others like the Miami Dolphins owner is selling the Dolphins now before Obama gets elected and he raises the capital gains tax.

The rich will avoid his taxation by every way possible; he will NOT get the funds he is expecting and further pound the middle class for it causing irreparable damage to that segment of society.

Your characterization of what "sharing the wealth" means is not all that accurate. Despite Republican propaganda, plans that benefit the rich do NOT benefit the average person who gets a four year degree and works hard at their job...they AREN'T the rich, that's the middle class. When we're talking about spreading the wealth around a little bit, it's not taking money from them and giving it to shiftless poor people, it's mostly trying to make sure the middle class gets their fair share, even if that means someone making half a million dollars a year has to pay a little more in taxes.

The way you describe things is the big Republican lie that has made their economic policies so oddly popular over the years, and while it might be politically convenient to convince people of it, it's just not true.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Just because CEO is making more and more does not mean hes doing it at the expense of you and I.

You really believe that?

You dont??

This is for all you fucking dumbasses out there. Click

LOOK! The money supply is not a fixed amount!! Thats means you too can make money even if a CEO is making millions!!

Hard to believe I know.....

No response to my logical argument above, Nice.

Obviously you know your argument is founded on a mountain of bullshit.

Ironically because it's above his pay grade as a shill.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: microbial
The idea of spreading the wealth is common for both Republicans and Democrats.

John McCain himself believes in trickle-down economics (classic Reaganomics). Which is the bullshitiest lying-pile-of-turd way of masquerading redistribution.

If you buy Reaganomics--I have a bridge to nowhere I'm selling...

What's funny is that it's only by stretching the phrase "spread the wealth" that Republicans are able to link it to that most hated of phrases, "redistribute the wealth". It's funny because the latter is actually a more accurate way to describe McCain's tax policy than Obama's, while the phrase Obama used is actually not bad. "Spreading" the wealth implies a lower concentration of wealth, where we all get a good piece of the pie. "Redistribution" of wealth, on the other hand, implies moving it around...in the case of McCain's policies, "redistributing" it upward in the hopes that the rich folks will hire some of us to wash their cars or something.