Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Immanuel]

Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post. Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post. Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie

I think he's actually saying that if we're going to allow some people to pay more of the burden then their vote should count more.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post. Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie

I think he's actually saying that if we're going to allow some people to pay more of the burden then their vote should count more.

Mike

I was not sure if he was trying to argue with me or what.

The idea of a rich person's vote counting more is definitely not American.

However, in principle, I do understand the point being made.

Here is an analogy. It is fair that if I am going to the Super Bowl this year and I pay the money to sit halfway up in the lower deck at the 50 yard line that I get those seats rather than have to sit last row, third deck in the end zone while some guy that pays for obstructed view tickets sits at the 50 yard line.

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level. Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)

You're right that the federal government caters to trial lawyers. They also listen to investment bankers. That is a LONG way from heeding the message of the people.

If the federal government gave a damn what the American people thought, the border would be secured and illegals would be deported.

 

[dblack]

I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level. Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)

I'm not against a strong local government. I respect the fact that local values are different from city to city, county to county and state to state. I want my laws to reflect the values of the community I live in. Even so, the power of the vote is alive and well...its just that people don't organize enough, nor do they follow through!

Hmm... see, it's this very aspect of democracy that doesn't sit right with me. What you describe isn't the power of the vote so much as the power of organized special interests. I don't think people should take it in the shorts just because they fail to 'organize'. Our bulwark against this kind of government is supposed to be constitutional limitations on government power, but with such limits all but obliterated, corporatism has free reign.

 

[Bern80]

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post. Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie

No I'm not defending the progressive tax code. What I'm saying is if we are going to continue with such a system it is perfectly fair that those who shoulder the most burden have the ability to campaign to have the tax code changed to benefit them as much as possible.

 

[Immanuel]

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post. Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie

No I'm not defending the progressive tax code. What I'm saying is if we are going to continue with such a system it is perfectly fair that those who shoulder the most burden have the ability to campaign to have the tax code changed to benefit them as much as possible.

Okay, gotcha, and knowing what I know about you from other posts, that was kind of what I thought, but for the record and just to be clear. I am not defending the progressive tax code.

I think it is an abject failure. In principle maybe it should work, but in fact, it is not working.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

No, I would not want to compromise the concept of one citizen, one vote. But I do think the system should ensure that everybody has a stake in the consequences of their vote.

When you have almost 50% of U.S. taxpayers paying little or no federal income taxes, those people don't care how much tax is put on everybody else. They do have incentive to vote for people who will keep them off the tax rolls and are far more likely to vote for their own self interest than they are likely to consider any other cause and effect of what their elected leaders do.

Initiate a 100% fair, equitable, across the board flat tax rate so that everybody pays the same rate on whatever income they have--a modest blanket exemption could be allowed so the kid with a paper route wouldn't need to fill out a federal tax form--but otherwise everybody pays 10% or 12% or 15% or whatever rate is necessary to fund the NECESSARY functions of the federal government. Now there is no incentive to vote for people who will keep 50% of the people tax free, but there is incentive to vote for people who will be careful and competentl stewards of the people's money because those who do that well will merit the people's vote.

 

[Vanquish]

I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level. Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)

I'm not against a strong local government. I respect the fact that local values are different from city to city, county to county and state to state. I want my laws to reflect the values of the community I live in. Even so, the power of the vote is alive and well...its just that people don't organize enough, nor do they follow through!

Hmm... see, it's this very aspect of democracy that doesn't sit right with me. What you describe isn't the power of the vote so much as the power of organized special interests. I don't think people should take it in the shorts just because they fail to 'organize'. Our bulwark against this kind of government is supposed to be constitutional limitations on government power, but with such limits all but obliterated, corporatism has free reign.

There you go. You hear Trial Lawyers and you get all these pre-conceived notions in your head. The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference. Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference. Exactly the point of what we're talking about.

They didn't use millions of dollars from some slick organization. We just had chicken casserole on cafeteria trays at a damn farmer's market. I could have been talking about the freakin' girl scouts or the Pollyanna Stocking Society for all that it matters. Don't get hung up on insignificant details.

 

[Bern80]

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

No, I would not want to compromise the concept of one citizen, one vote. But I do think the system should ensure that everybody has a stake in the consequences of their vote.

When you have almost 50% of U.S. taxpayers paying little or no federal income taxes, those people don't care how much tax is put on everybody else. They do have incentive to vote for people who will keep them off the tax rolls and are far more likely to vote for their own self interest than they are likely to consider any other cause and effect of what their elected leaders do.

Initiate a 100% fair, equitable, across the board flat tax rate so that everybody pays the same rate on whatever income they have--a modest blanket exemption could be allowed so the kid with a paper route wouldn't need to fill out a federal tax form--but otherwise everybody pays 10% or 12% or 15% or whatever rate is necessary to fund the NECESSARY functions of the federal government. Now there is no incentive to vote for people who will keep 50% of the people tax free, but there is incentive to vote for people who will be careful and competentl stewards of the people's money because those who do that well will merit the people's vote.

Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.

 

[Vanquish]

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.

No, I would not want to compromise the concept of one citizen, one vote. But I do think the system should ensure that everybody has a stake in the consequences of their vote.

When you have almost 50% of U.S. taxpayers paying little or no federal income taxes, those people don't care how much tax is put on everybody else. They do have incentive to vote for people who will keep them off the tax rolls and are far more likely to vote for their own self interest than they are likely to consider any other cause and effect of what their elected leaders do.

Initiate a 100% fair, equitable, across the board flat tax rate so that everybody pays the same rate on whatever income they have--a modest blanket exemption could be allowed so the kid with a paper route wouldn't need to fill out a federal tax form--but otherwise everybody pays 10% or 12% or 15% or whatever rate is necessary to fund the NECESSARY functions of the federal government. Now there is no incentive to vote for people who will keep 50% of the people tax free, but there is incentive to vote for people who will be careful and competentl stewards of the people's money because those who do that well will merit the people's vote.

Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.

This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!

 

[dblack]

get all these pre-conceived notions in your head. The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference. Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference. Exactly the point of what we're talking about.

They didn't use millions of dollars from some slick organization. We just had chicken casserole on cafeteria trays at a damn farmer's market. I could have been talking about the freakin' girl scouts or the Pollyanna Stocking Society for all that it matters. Don't get hung up on insignificant details.

Your description was clear enough, and I understood just what you were talking about. But I don't think that's a good way for government to work. I don't want a government that responds to the demands of organized special interest groups, regardless of whether they are rich multinational corporations, or dedicated local activists. I want a government limited to actions the protect the general welfare of all of us - as equally as possible.

Again, when I say corporatist, I'm not talking about government dominated by large businesses - I'm talking about government that operates predominately by divving up power and influence among organized special interests. Those can be large corporations - but they can also be small groups of local activists.

in such an environment, the rights of individuals and un-organized minorities (and for that matter un-organizied majorities), fall by the wayside. Government becomes a competition between organized groups vying for power. That works well for government power brokers and organized lobbyists, but it sucks for the rest of us.

 

[Vanquish]

I agree with your sentiment, but not your result.

I agree that for far too long the government has been influenced, bribed, and coerced by unscrupulous political interest groups. I agree that it's thrown the balance of power away from the individual and probably screwed us all in the long run.

The problem is that we all have the freedom to associate. It's one of the overlooked freedoms to be sure, but it's a really important one. If people can't get together and work for a political goal, what else CAN they organize to achieve? What's more important than people giving their free time to influence government about a cause they care about? Respectfully, who are we to tell people they can't speak out together?

Like any tool...guns...money...what have you...political interest groups can either work for good or evil. That's why it takes a focused, willing, interested population to fight the good fight.

NINJA EDIT: The ruling by the SCOTUS that corporations can use untold sums of cash as political speech didn't help matters.

 

[dblack]

I agree with your sentiment, but not your result.

I agree that for far too long the government has been influenced, bribed, and coerced by unscrupulous political interest groups. I agree that it's thrown the balance of power away from the individual and probably screwed us all in the long run.

The problem is that we all have the freedom to associate. It's one of the overlooked freedoms to be sure, but it's a really important one. If people can't get together and work for a political goal, what else CAN they organize to achieve? What's more important than people giving their free time to influence government about a cause they care about? Respectfully, who are we to tell people they can't speak out together?

Like any tool...guns...money...what have you...political interest groups can either work for good or evil. That's why it takes a focused, willing, interested population to fight the good fight.

NINJA EDIT: The ruling by the SCOTUS that corporations can use untold sums of cash as political speech didn't help matters.

The Supreme Court is precisely the weak link in all of this. Catzmeow posted a link a few days ago to an excellent article on the distinction between a democracy and a republic:

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

We shouldn't have to organize and 'fight back' in order to protect ourselves for overreaching government (regardless of who is driving it). The limitations on government built into the constitution are supposed to be our bulwark against special interests using government to exert power over the rest of us (whether they represent the majority or not).

But over the years, the Supreme Court has nullified some of the most important protections encoded in the Constitution. I have at least some sliver of hope after the most recent rejection of the unlimited power of the commerce clause. Obama may have done us all a favor by pushing the envelope with the individual mandate. If it results in a solid rebuke of using the commerce clause as the legislative multi-tool, the entire debacle will have been worth it. I heck, I may even vote for him in a gesture of thanks (assuming hell doesn't freeze over and Ron Paul is nominated by the Republicans).

 

[Vanquish]

I agree that the CC and the DCC are way to broad and overreaching. It's insane what they chalk up to "interstate commerce" these days.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

That is, as you know, a fucking lie.

The middle class has gained wealth at a lower rate than the rich.

The middle class has far greater purchasing power than they did in 1980. 4000 sqft McMansion, anyone?

You leftists frame the debate by flat out lying - it makes civil discourse impossible.

 

[Foxfyre]

get all these pre-conceived notions in your head. The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference. Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference. Exactly the point of what we're talking about.

They didn't use millions of dollars from some slick organization. We just had chicken casserole on cafeteria trays at a damn farmer's market. I could have been talking about the freakin' girl scouts or the Pollyanna Stocking Society for all that it matters. Don't get hung up on insignificant details.

Your description was clear enough, and I understood just what you were talking about. But I don't think that's a good way for government to work. I don't want a government that responds to the demands of organized special interest groups, regardless of whether they are rich multinational corporations, or dedicated local activists. I want a government limited to actions the protect the general welfare of all of us - as equally as possible.

Again, when I say corporatist, I'm not talking about government dominated by large businesses - I'm talking about government that operates predominately by divving up power and influence among organized special interests. Those can be large corporations - but they can also be small groups of local activists.

in such an environment, the rights of individuals and un-organized minorities (and for that matter un-organizied majorities), fall by the wayside. Government becomes a competition between organized groups vying for power. That works well for government power brokers and organized lobbyists, but it sucks for the rest of us.

I think you have hit on the precise point around which this entire debate should be framed. First, you CANNOT have a middle class without a wealthy class. Second, the U.S. Middle Class is a wealthy class compared to the middle class in most of the rest of the world. Third, the wealthy class has not taken anything away from the Middle Class but rather has provided most of the opportunity, choices, and options that the Middle Class enjoys. The very best means of this fortunate situation to exist and improve is for the federal government protect everybody's rights and otherwise stay mostly out of it.

No federal government charity or special considerations or benefits to anybody, rich or poor.

No federal government charity or special considerations or benefits to special interest groups no matter how noble they purport to be.

We need a clarification drilled into everybody that the general welfare means benefit to EVERYBODY, rich and poor alike. When it is targeted at one group and another is left out, it is no longer the general welfare. And whenever special interests can persuade, coerce, bribe, or threaten the federal government into using the people's money for the benefit of any special interest, no matter who they are, the system is then corrupted both in government and in the beneficiaries of the benefit.

 

[Vanquish]

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

That is, as you know, a fucking lie.

The middle class has gained wealth at a lower rate than the rich.

The middle class has far greater purchasing power than they did in 1980. 4000 sqft McMansion, anyone?

You leftists frame the debate by flat out lying - it makes civil discourse impossible.

Conservatives lie in threads too, so don't make it seem like just one side.

I'm curious as to what you think the logical extent of your comment about "gaining wealth" is. 200 years from now when the rich have grown their wealth exponentially because of the power of money (both in compounding and in opportunity) and there's nothing but a rich and poor society...will a conservative think that some social engineering should have been done to ensure some balance.

Just simply take your comment to the logical extent. Or will you simply say, "shucks, if that's what happens in a free market, oh well! them's the breaks!"

 

[Foxfyre]

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

That is, as you know, a fucking lie.

The middle class has gained wealth at a lower rate than the rich.

The middle class has far greater purchasing power than they did in 1980. 4000 sqft McMansion, anyone?

You leftists frame the debate by flat out lying - it makes civil discourse impossible.

Conservatives lie in threads too, so don't make it seem like just one side.

I'm curious as to what you think the logical extent of your comment about "gaining wealth" is. 200 years from now when the rich have grown their wealth exponentially because of the power of money (both in compounding and in opportunity) and there's nothing but a rich and poor society...will a conservative think that some social engineering should have been done to ensure some balance.

Just simply take your comment to the logical extent. Or will you simply say, "shucks, if that's what happens in a free market, oh well! them's the breaks!"

You don't have just rich and poor in a free market society. You have an ever transitioning society where the poorest of the poor can hope to aspire to be the richest of the rich and everything in between with people moving up and down on the scale depending on their ability, initiative, work ethic, education, vision, staying power, opportunity, and sometimes just plain luck. Free market societies are classless as nobody has to be stuck where they are.

But history has shown again and again and again that the more government assumes power to allocate the winners and losers in the society, the more the gap between rich and poor will grow with the poor becoming the large but powerless majority.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives lie in threads too, so don't make it seem like just one side.

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't - but this is one of those foundational lies. IF it is accepted, then the basis of all else is altered.

That it IS a lie, and an insidious one, makes it despicable. RW knows it to be a lie, I have listed the costs of products and housing for both time periods and expanded them to the hourly wages required to obtain them on a dozen occasions.

The fact is that the purchasing power of ALL Americans has significantly increased since 1980. But IF RW and other leftists are honest and acknowledge that their complaint is that the wealth of the rich has grown FASTER than the wealth of the middle class, they reveal themselves as the petty peddlers of envy - which is in fact what they are.

I'm curious as to what you think the logical extent of your comment about "gaining wealth" is.

There is only one standard, how many hours of labor one must expend to purchase the goods they need and want.

Less hours of labor are required to buy the same goods today than were required in 1980. Each class of Americans enjoys vastly greater quality and quantity of Goods today than in 1980.

Facts don't support the envy and outrage needed to motivate a population to cede liberty to rulers promising "fairness" in exchange for subservience, so RW and others of his ilk lie, shamelessly and blatantly.

Such is the left.