Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Actually Prez policies are #1, IF you are honest. Of course you are a conservative, so you aren't!


Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies


Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Ernie S.]

And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.

 

[Dad2three]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

It's based on SOCIETY. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Benjamin Franklin

 

[Dad2three]

And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.

RECORD profits?

 

[Dad2three]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time. Now they get it through complicated trusts and off-shore holdings.


There really is no such thing as "Wealth" redistribution.

Ask any welfare recipient if they feel "wealthy".

The wealthy benefit from our system of government and economy, specifically the relationship between the public and private sector. They pay more, because they benefit more.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor prevents a breakdown in the system during recessions and downturns (market corrections) - safety nets are the result of lessons learned from the French revolution and Great Depression.

It not just about the rich protecting their way of life and the market system, it's about a national moral identity - we are a compassionate country. We don't allow the elderly to just lie on the streets and die, hence medicare.

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.

OMG! That's awful! Parents giving their money to their kids.

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded. WAY less than 1% pay estate taxes

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

 

[Dad2three]

How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person has a chance to inherit it?

Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.

Never mind all the millions of people who had good jobs in all those businesses that had been handed down from fathers to sons, etc. With all that lovely inheritance money the government can take are of them too.

Does anybody see how silly some of these arguments have been?

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

 

[Dad2three]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the connection between deficits and the debt. Yes, there is a difference, but they are closely related. . I. below is correct.

I. Deficits, Surpluses and Debt: Definitions and A Brief History

A budget deficit occurs when the government spending exceeds government revenue in a given time period, usually one year:
deficit = government spending - revenue, where spending > revenue.

A budget surplus occurs when government spending is less than government revenue in a given time period:
surplus = revenue - spending, where revenue > spending.

In measuring deficits and surpluses, the government uses its fiscal year (October 1 - September 30), not its calendar year.

The national debt is a running total of all deficits minus all surpluses


Note that the deficit and the debt are NOT the same thing. Journalists and politicians confuse them all of the time, but you know better, now don't you?

Most certainly, I do know better.

From 1970 to 1997, the federal government ran a deficit every single year. Starting in 1998, the federal government began running surpluses. In the 1980s the size of deficits exploded, greatly increasing the national debt:

Chapter 12: Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt



I LOVE MAKING CONS LOOK FOOLISH, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT TO DIFFICULT...

You have made yourself look foolish by quoting a web site which is lying through their teeth. Now, if you want to see the facts let us go to the US Treasury which partially confirms some of what you said, but clearly proves that some of it is not true. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)All of your quote which I bolded is correct.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​

Thus at the end of the fiscal year, the debt goes up because of accumulated deficits, and the fact that off budget surplus MUST BE GIVEN TO THE TREASURY IN RETURN FOR DEBT TO THE TRUST FUNDS.

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus. The extremist yahoos like to look at the Calendar year in which there was a surplus but overlook the fact that before the end of the fiscal year there was a deficit.

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

 

[Dad2three]

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus.

not only that but what Clinton did he did because of Newt! Newt made Clinton lie and say "the era of big govt is over" and he made him somewhat fiscally responsible. A president is not the govt!!

Sure, it was Newt, that why AFTER Clinton's first surplus the GOP passe a $700+ billion tax cut Clinton had to veto to get 3 more *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich

And why, do you suppose, we're not doing anything about that?

Simple. GOP have been taken over by sociopaths, we call them conservatives/libertarians!

 

[Dad2three]

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.


Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.


The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.

But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

There could be zero risk. So what? Drilling expense is still a business expense.

Nope, it's an expense afforded to THAT industry only, WHEN that industry makes record profits and is over 100+ years old...

 

[Dad2three]

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

SCOTUS has repeatedly said you are full of shit

 

[Dad2three]

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

Plenty of Republicans supported, and still support, these programs.

Yet conservatives fought EVERYONE of the programs and still do...

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

Which is why we have no Bill of Rights.

Oh, wait....

Sure, part of the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T THING

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time. Now they get it through complicated trusts and off-shore holdings.


There really is no such thing as "Wealth" redistribution.

Ask any welfare recipient if they feel "wealthy".

The wealthy benefit from our system of government and economy, specifically the relationship between the public and private sector. They pay more, because they benefit more.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor prevents a breakdown in the system during recessions and downturns (market corrections) - safety nets are the result of lessons learned from the French revolution and Great Depression.

It not just about the rich protecting their way of life and the market system, it's about a national moral identity - we are a compassionate country. We don't allow the elderly to just lie on the streets and die, hence medicare.

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.

OMG! That's awful! Parents giving their money to their kids.

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded. WAY less than 1% pay estate taxes

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded.

I know. Just awful!!!

 

[Dad2three]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

Got it fuktard, you don't understand the yearly budget is nothing more than revenues coming in and expenses going out, and under Clinton we had more coming in than going out 4 times (3 after he vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut)..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person has a chance to inherit it?

Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.

Never mind all the millions of people who had good jobs in all those businesses that had been handed down from fathers to sons, etc. With all that lovely inheritance money the government can take are of them too.

Does anybody see how silly some of these arguments have been?

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

Everything belongs to the state!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[Dad2three]

Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.

OMG! That's awful! Parents giving their money to their kids.

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded. WAY less than 1% pay estate taxes

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded.

I know. Just awful!!!

True, it should be about $2 million per person

 

[Dad2three]

How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person has a chance to inherit it?

Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.

Never mind all the millions of people who had good jobs in all those businesses that had been handed down from fathers to sons, etc. With all that lovely inheritance money the government can take are of them too.

Does anybody see how silly some of these arguments have been?

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

Everything belongs to the state!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

No, most of the money was made in Somalia, Gov't and US society didn't benefit those 'job creators' at all right Bubba?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.


Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.


The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.

But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

There could be zero risk. So what? Drilling expense is still a business expense.

Nope, it's an expense afforded to THAT industry only, WHEN that industry makes record profits and is over 100+ years old...

It's true, only industries that drill get to deduct drilling expenses.

Just as every other business gets to deduct their legitimate business expenses. No matter what their level of profit. So?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded. WAY less than 1% pay estate taxes

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded.

I know. Just awful!!!

True, it should be about $2 million per person

It should be unlimited.