Tax burden

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am failing to understand how taxes on the wealthy turns in to some Robin hood, take from the rich give to the poor scenerio. 500 billion dollars a year goes to defense, 400 billion dollars goes to interest on our debt. Iraq is 9 billion a month. Thats about 1 trillion dollars all on its own.

500 billion is as much as the rest of the world spends combined on defense, 400 billion on interest is just plain ass silly, and 100 billion a year on an optional war is just as silly.

Can we complain about that instead of complaining about helping our own poor people for a small fraction of that cost, and the majority of which honestly need the help and are not abusing the system?

we talk about that all the time Redistribution of wealth is something *some* people want to achieve with government. Some people have been defending the idea in this thread, ie., the thread went in that direction. I'm sorry you don't approve

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am failing to understand how taxes on the wealthy turns in to some Robin hood, take from the rich give to the poor scenerio. 500 billion dollars a year goes to defense, 400 billion dollars goes to interest on our debt. Iraq is 9 billion a month. Thats about 1 trillion dollars all on its own.

500 billion is as much as the rest of the world spends combined on defense, 400 billion on interest is just plain ass silly, and 100 billion a year on an optional war is just as silly.

Can we complain about that instead of complaining about helping our own poor people for a small fraction of that cost, and the majority of which honestly need the help and are not abusing the system?

Why can't I not like that *and* not like that people want to take my money to give it to other people?

[hsmith]

Congress voted down raising the AMT today. 20mil people get hit by that, which hasn't been adjusted in forever. Insane.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, I understand... I understand that Marxism doesn't work and ends up slowing production. I know that distribution of wealth enslaves people to one another. I know that it creates a welfare state (what we already have is horrible for the poor people, redistribution would be even worse).

It's an unreasonable political theory that has been tried and has failed. What's worse is that Marx, pretty much the father of socialism, was a rich guy who sat around thinking about what poor people want and do.

"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed" - Herman Melville

Free market economics makes no assumptions on the nature of poor people, it simply allows them to partake in the same way anyone else can.

Sorry, how is a progressive tax policy Marxism? How many straw man arguments are you going to make in this thread?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What I don't get is how people can still think he owes them anything when giving back to the world is now a huge part of his life, just like so many other exorbitantly wealthy people. He uses his money now to fight diseases that plague third world nations. If we redistributed it, what would happen? I'll tell you what wouldn't happen, that much money wouldn't get used to do those things. And all those big donors of his, like Warran Buffet... their wealth would be redistributed too.

And that's just ONE aspect of the retardation of redistribution of wealth. That doesn't even TOUCH the national economic impacts.

another mischaracterization

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And don't forget that a tax base is a matter of % of income or anything else you care to tax. That is not the same as actual revenue. People who have substantial growth in income may be paying a lot more in taxes in actual dollars even if the bracket numbers are lower. More in income tax, sales tax, property tax, ect....You cannot simply raise taxes to generate more revenue. When you do this to a point where it is a disinsentive to spend and invest in the private sector you will end up with less money to fund the government. Liberals need to stop thinking of taxation as a way to punish an economic class they don't like. It does not work.

Hey Reagan, trickle-down economics doesn't work.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Sorry, how is a progressive tax policy Marxism? How many straw man arguments are you going to make in this thread?

Straw man? That distribution of wealth is Marxist? That Marx was a rich guy who thought he knew the motivation of poor people?

We got off progressive tax policy 3 pages ago. YOU are the one that has been defending the ideas of redistribution of wealth.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

another mischaracterization

Of what?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Straw man? That distribution of wealth is Marxist? That Marx was a rich guy who thought he knew the motivation of poor people?

We got off progressive tax policy 3 pages ago. YOU are the one that has been defending the ideas of redistribution of wealth.

It's not redistribution. Nobody is raiding the assets of the rich. It's an income tax just like what everybody else pays. If we don't, then it's redistribution in the other direction.

[Ardentfrost]

you REALLY think the market disallows the poor to get any money? I think it's the government supporting fiscal policy that destroys jobs that causes them to not get any money.

The rich getting richer should be ok as long as the poor are better off too. The links that either David or WickedLou, even though not intended for that purpose, show that happening over the past 20 years. If you're poor, and you're better off this year than you were last year, what do you care if a rich guy is also better off?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

you REALLY think the market disallows the poor to get any money? I think it's the government supporting fiscal policy that destroys jobs that causes them to not get any money.

The rich getting richer should be ok as long as the poor are better off too. The links that either David or WickedLou, even though not intended for that purpose, show that happening over the past 20 years. If you're poor, and you're better off this year than you were last year, what do you care if a rich guy is also better off?

Money is power, and the government policy that destroys jobs is dictated by those with money.

I have no problem with wealth. I don't see how you can say that the poor are keeping up though. Labor bureau statistics are notoriously suspect. If you look at the credibility our government has when it comes to reporting numbers, it's almost zero.

[Thorgrim]

there's a difference between the rich being better off because of new technology, blackberries make things easier, the price of big screen tvs has fallen, etc...things are better for them...thats nice

another is them taking a larger share of a set number of wealth, while the poor end up with a lesser share of their already meager wealth...percentages not amounts

[Ardentfrost]

Maybe I misunderstand, the government creates situations that favor the rich. The rich then end up with more money, and you get pissed and want their wealth distributed down (or are we talking about just taxing them more?). All the while the poor are trying to get and keep jobs, and then as a method to try to redistribute the wealth the government raises minimum wage and welfare payouts. This ends up destroying jobs and decreasing the opportunity cost of having a job.

How is this better than a free market?

[bheld]

The thing is that it's not the poor that is getting squeezed, it's the middle class. As you can see from the charts the poor don't have any wealth to lose. The big losers in the shift in wealth are the ones in the middle class as they give more and more away to the wealthy.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Maybe I misunderstand, the government creates situations that favor the rich. The rich then end up with more money, and you get pissed and want their wealth distributed down (or are we talking about just taxing them more?). All the while the poor are trying to get and keep jobs, and then as a method to try to redistribute the wealth the government raises minimum wage and welfare payouts. This ends up destroying jobs and decreasing the opportunity cost of having a job.

How is this better than a free market?

At this point I'd settle for policies that don't favor the rich. We can work on stealing from the rich to create a workers' paradise later.

[Thorgrim]

if americans get more moeny because:
a) keeping up with inflation
b) they got a valid promotion
c) america as a whole is getting more of a wealth share than other countries (we already have a ridiculous advantage, but say we add to that)

I don't care who you are, that's good news (unless theres some stupid scenario im not thinking about)

however, if you're taking company profits that are a result of your employees hard work, and giving yourself and your board a big fat bonus for nothing special, while your workers who did all the shit get pretty much nothing, I think that's wrong

It's an anecdotal hypothetical, that, added up...leads to a situation where the rich control 99% of the wealth and the poor are 90% of the population and control 1% of the wealth

I know I'm exagerating to make a point, but there is a reason the french revolution happened and most of it was based in the rich controlling too much of the wealth

we don't need to ENCOURAGE a system where the ultra-wealthy build bath tubs of gold just because they can, while the poor are getting kicked out of their houses and forced to live in a $1500 van

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

At this point I'd settle for policies that don't favor the rich. We can work on stealing from the rich to create a workers' paradise later.

Lol, well, I at least agree with you that we shouldn't be favoring the rich, but I'll raise you one by saying we shouldn't be favoring anyone (corporation, person, or whatever). That is the type of government intervention into the market that I'm against (being a free market guy and all)

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Lol, well, I at least agree with you that we shouldn't be favoring the rich, but I'll raise you one by saying we shouldn't be favoring anyone (corporation, person, or whatever). That is the type of government intervention into the market that I'm against (being a free market guy and all)

I think the government has a duty to operate in the best interests of the citizenry but at no time should our intent be to favor smaller, specific groups of people.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if americans get more moeny because:
a) keeping up with inflation
b) they got a valid promotion
c) america as a whole is getting more of a wealth share than other countries (we already have a ridiculous advantage, but say we add to that)

I don't care who you are, that's good news (unless theres some stupid scenario im not thinking about)

however, if you're taking company profits that are a result of your employees hard work, and giving yourself and your board a big fat bonus for nothing special, while your workers who did all the shit get pretty much nothing, I think that's wrong

It's an anecdotal hypothetical, that, added up...leads to a situation where the rich control 99% of the wealth and the poor are 90% of the population and control 1% of the wealth

I know I'm exagerating to make a point, but there is a reason the french revolution happened and most of it was based in the rich controlling too much of the wealth

we don't need to ENCOURAGE a system where the ultra-wealthy build bath tubs of gold just because they can, while the poor are getting kicked out of their houses and forced to live in a $1500 van

The cool thing about the market is that those big bonuses taken from the employees and given to the CEOs or boards or whatever create situations where the employees become demotivated and the corporation hurts because of it. Just in the past few years that very thing has happened to a number of multi-billion dollar corporations who ended up hurting MAJORLY in the end. One that comes to mind quickly is Tyco International.

But you can't judge corporations on the bad apples, we just need to make it so the bad apples can't take advantage of the situation. Most corporations are good, it's very few that are evil.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The cool thing about the market is that those big bonuses taken from the employees and given to the CEOs or boards or whatever create situations where the employees become demotivated and the corporation hurts because of it. Just in the past few years that very thing has happened to a number of multi-billion dollar corporations who ended up hurting MAJORLY in the end. One that comes to mind quickly is Tyco International.

But you can't judge corporations on the bad apples, we just need to make it so the bad apples can't take advantage of the situation. Most corporations are good, it's very few that are evil.

Exxon Mobil is really hurting

The free market doesn't have a sense of justice, that's why we have regulations, and almost everyone agrees we need SOME regulation

if the free market were perfect, we'd have most americans saying we need no regulation whatsoever