Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]ALL COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS SHOULD BE DEDUCABLE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY CALL IT, HONESTLY!

they really are anyway. If they are not deductible as a cost a corp will merely raise prices.

Corporations are tax collectors, not tax payers.

 

[dnsmith35]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching. Unholy horseshit!

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.

The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”

You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.

LBJ (JFK) used DEMAND SIDE NOT trickle down. Get honest

Are you really that stupid? Any time the tax cuts are of a greater rate at the top than at the bottom IT IS SUPPLY SIDE. Pure economic theory.

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

I am not a supply sider. I believe that both demand and supply side economics work based on the business cycle.

But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

And you believe that lying sack of shit? Bwa ha ha ha!

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

One more piece of left wing extremist propaganda. At least TRY to understand a little about economics.


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.



Read more: What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. Over time, the boost to economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut.

What is supply-side economics? Definition and meaning

supply-side economics

definition

An economic theory that holds that creating a positive investment environment by reducing taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals will stimulate job creation and economic opportunity at all levels. Also known as trickle-down economics.

 

[Dad2three]

If people were intellectually honest they wouldn't look at the misleading concept of tax RATES but rather would look at the amount of tax that is actually paid. What difference do the rates make if the tax rate for the poor is 90% and the tax rate for the rich is 10% if the tax code is structured for the poor to pay nothing and the rich to pay everything regardless of what the rates actually are?

That 90% tax rate on the rich the left is so gung ho to promote did not come anywhere close to what the rich actually paid, and in those years the less rich were paying a whole lot more and there was much more parity in the actual burden assessed on the individuals and commerce and industry.

The so-called tax breaks for the rich the left is so fond of criticizing in the Bush administration resulted in the rich paying substantially more taxes than they had been paying and a substantially higher percentage of all taxes paid. But because the rate is lower, the left went into a state of apoplexy and rage we have come to expect.

Is the class envy so strong that if a rich man is taxed at 10% and pays $1 million in taxes, and you raise his rate to 90% with the result, after he moves and shelters most of his income, that he pays $500,000 in taxes, that you still feel righteous? I am beginning to think the math deficiency produced in our schools is worse than I thought.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP


As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)




Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says


Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country


The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Here’s the legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts.

1. Drove the deficit

2. Fueled income inequality

3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, showing the distributional breakdown of the Bush tax cuts before they were amended on Tuesday. Going forward, the top 1 percent of earners will benefit much less -- though still quite a bit.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching. Unholy horseshit

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.

LBJ (JFK) used DEMAND SIDE NOT trickle down. Get honest

Are you really that stupid? Any time the tax cuts are of a greater rate at the top than at the bottom IT IS SUPPLY SIDE. Pure economic theory.

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

I am not a supply sider. I believe that both demand and supply side economics work based on the business cycle.

But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

And you believe that lying sack of shit? Bwa ha ha ha!

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

One more piece of left wing extremist propaganda. At least TRY to understand a little about economics.


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.



Read more: What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. Over time, the boost to economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut.

What is supply-side economics? Definition and meaning

supply-side economics

definition

An economic theory that holds that creating a positive investment environment by reducing taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals will stimulate job creation and economic opportunity at all levels. Also known as trickle-down economics.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]



Got it, NOT what LBJ's tax cuts did. Thanks

 

[Dad2three]

If people were intellectually honest they wouldn't look at the misleading concept of tax RATES but rather would look at the amount of tax that is actually paid. What difference do the rates make if the tax rate for the poor is 90% and the tax rate for the rich is 10% if the tax code is structured for the poor to pay nothing and the rich to pay everything regardless of what the rates actually are?

That 90% tax rate on the rich the left is so gung ho to promote did not come anywhere close to what the rich actually paid, and in those years the less rich were paying a whole lot more and there was much more parity in the actual burden assessed on the individuals and commerce and industry.

The so-called tax breaks for the rich the left is so fond of criticizing in the Bush administration resulted in the rich paying substantially more taxes than they had been paying and a substantially higher percentage of all taxes paid. But because the rate is lower, the left went into a state of apoplexy and rage we have come to expect.

Is the class envy so strong that if a rich man is taxed at 10% and pays $1 million in taxes, and you raise his rate to 90% with the result, after he moves and shelters most of his income, that he pays $500,000 in taxes, that you still feel righteous? I am beginning to think the math deficiency produced in our schools is worse than I thought.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[dblack]

Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.

 

[Dad2three]

Yet since wealth is not a zero sum figure, The 20% DOES NOT DETRACT $.05 FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.

If you really believe that you have been effectively brainwashed by the millionaire propagandists who serve the interests of the One Percent.

Nope! As a business consultant with an MBA with a major in economics I came to that conclusion on my own. In researching the issue with other economists and their studies it was determined that my conclusion was correct.

Fiat wealth appears to be infinite -- until the bubble bursts.

Wealth is not a zero sum issue as increased production increases total wealth.

Real wealth is finite. It represents the material, administrative, and the human (citizen) resources of this Nation. To suggest these resources are limitless is plainly ignorant.

The wealth in one second of time can be deemed finite. In the next instant in time it may grow or decrease, depending on the business cycle. I have not suggested our physical resources are infinite, but their VALUE DEFINITELY INCREASES DEPENDING ON HOW WE EXPLOIT THOSE PHYSICAL RESOURCES. In so far as human resources are concerned, that is based on the total production of those human resources plus the improved production of automation. It is ignorant to believe otherwise or listen to the left wing extremist propaganda which tries to convince the sheeple that the rich are taking away part of the wealth they are due.

Got it, AGAIN you'll not argue the posit, but instead go off on a tangent

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Sallow]

we tried your model ...

What???

Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" provide moral justification for taking money away from people simply because we think they've accumulated too much?

None of them have even tried.

Mainly because the vast majority of the uber wealthy haven't earned it.

Additionally when wealth translates into power? Concentrating it in to the hands of the very few is a ridiculously bad idea.

 

[Dad2three]

In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,

hate to rock your world but effective rate was 0% since taxes are like any other cost and so are passed on to consumers. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who lack the IQ to understand.

Imagine that!!!! Liberal Marxists are so proud of the corporate tax to punish business without knowing they are paying the tax in higher prices. It is very very unbelievable isn't it?

Yeah, sure, tax burdens NEVER fall to owners of Corps as ECONOMISTS say right? lol

 

[Bush92]

Your $$$$, spend it how you want. I have nothing against wealthy people. They earned it.

 

[bripat9643]

Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.

Libturds like Dad2Three certainly aren't interested in providing a moral justification for their schemes to plunder the money people have earned. That's because they know there is no moral justification. Plain greed in envy is the motivation. There's no way to put a sugar coating on that.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol

You can not say that socialism/fascism create jobs. Show me when/where it has worked and then we' talk.

.

False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. I'm shocked

 

[boedicca]

Apparently the gods took pity on Dad2three and gave him one talent: to mindlessly google up Prog propaganda.

 

[Dad2three]

Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.

Libturds like Dad2Three certainly aren't interested in providing a moral justification for their schemes to plunder the money people have earned. That's because they know there is no moral justification. Plain greed in envy is the motivation. There's no way to put a sugar coating on that.

What the hell do you think a tax is?

WALTON FAMILY IS WORTH AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM 40% OF US. Earned? lol

 

[Dad2three]

actually right wingers don't claim Bush because he was not a right winger. Why not grow up?
You do little more than lie when you say Bush was a right winger.

Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol

dear, he was not a right winger whenever he supported liberal intervention. Do you understand now? How slow are you?

Oh like the unanimous GOP supporting his ADDI (dream down payment) program in 2003? Or supporting gov't backing of zero down loans?


GOP had zero conservatives? lol

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol

You can not say that socialism/fascism create jobs. Show me when/where it has worked and then we' talk.

.

False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. I'm shocked

Explain to me you retarded son of bitch why Cubans will come to the USA on anything that floats.

.

 

[Dad2three]

No, you made some comment about my "model" (what??) and copied and pasted an irrelevant article. Twice.

Weird, so the Founders are irrelevant to why the US should create policy?

The founders thoughts about a modern economy as we have today are completely irrelevant. As it is, the US economy has lifted more people out of poverty into relative prosperity (compared to the whole of the rest of the world), which is something the founders could not even imagine.

And for 30+ years conservative policy (trickle down, 'free trade', etc) has shifted income from the poor and middle class to the 'job creators (Chinese) "

 

[Dad2three]

You can not say that socialism/fascism create jobs. Show me when/where it has worked and then we' talk.

.

False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. I'm shocked

Explain to me you retarded son of bitch why Cubans will come to the USA on anything that floats.

.

Tell me why Calif has the most millionaires AND billionaire and the highest taxes on the 'job creators'?

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

I think the problem with your argument is how you are framing it.

Wealth is not currently distributed according to the effort to produce it.

The Top 20% of the country control 87% of the wealth. The top 1% control 43% of the wealth. The top 400 people control more wealth than the bottom half of the nation.

So it's not so much "redistribution" than "proper distribution".

I will go a step further. I actually agree with the right wing when they say that government dependence is a bad thing. But you can't have WalMart (owned by some of the richest people in the country) paying their employees so little they have to go on food stamps, and then complain about "Dependency". It strikes me these folks are willing to do some of the hard work.

 

[Contumacious]

False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. I'm shocked

Explain to me you retarded son of bitch why Cubans will come to the USA on anything that floats.

.

Tell me why Calif has the most millionaires AND billionaire and the highest taxes on the 'job creators'?

Because Jerry and the marxists live there and parasites constitute 47-50% of the electorate.

.