Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[dnsmith35]

All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked.

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya, besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head*

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.


YEP

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
DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

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



Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?

It is truly difficult to understand just how ignorant you are, EVEN WITH YOUR OWN POSTS AND LINKS. Look again at that last graph you posted. It tells us that the top earners earned 538% more money during the period covered but still pays the same old % of taxes. Are you even aware that that line alone tells us that the monetary quantity of taxes paid is also 528% more than was paid before this period of time? You need to learn to UNDERSTAND the graphs you post, most of which prove exactly the opposite of which you thought they said.

And in reference to Carter's job creation, he left over 9% unemployment for Reagan with stagflation which was crippling to our employment figures. Before Reagan was done, the rate was down to 5.3%.

 

[Avorysuds]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

You and all your lemmings thanking you would have to write Obama about that one... Why didn't he and the Dem Senate and Congress do something about it when they had a super majority for 2 years, or even under Bush when they held the house and Senate for 2 years (Obama included).

Oh, because you only care when a Republican is President.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Unfortunately, the GOP has been just as complicit in letting them happen.

A real disappointment.

And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

Granted, the democrats are full blown AIDS.

But that doesn't make the GOP pleasant, by any means.

 

[Desperado]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
Wealth Redistribution = Theft
There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
Yes, it is just that simple.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[Desperado]

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.

Amazing that those parent wanted to give their kids a better life than what the parent had.
Unlike Phillip Seymour Hoffman who didn't leave a dime to his children. Claims he did not want them to grow up to be spoiled brats.
Philip Seymour Hoffman Didn't Leave His Kids a Dime. Good for Him. | RYOT News

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

I didn't think you would have a bit of problem. And uncensored has it right as well. The question was not really aimed at you or him. I was curious how our resident left wing extremist thought about it.

No problem. I was just having fun with it too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude, and every bit as immoral.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).

The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.

Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.

This is a real gem.

Thank you for addressing this, boedicca. I explained this very same thing to rightwinger a few years ago, i.e., the American family's response to double digit inflation and interest rates during the era of Stagflation. I also explained to him why lower rates of taxation below the prevailing threshold garner more revenue than higher rates: a slice at a lower rate of taxation from a large pie is bigger than a slice at a higher rate of taxation from a puny pie, and it's the lower rate of taxation that causes the pie to grow in the first place. Made it simple for him, but, of course, to no avail.

But there was also another factor that is not evident from Dad2three's overly simplistic penchant for "presidential-term" analyses by graph. Toward the end of Carter's last year in office, the economy was struck by yet another downturn in employment on top of years of stagflation with investment at its lowest level since 1970. This trend continued through Reagan's first two years in office before the remedial effects of his economic policies kicked in: an additional negative of roughly 2.6% to 2.8% bled over into Reagan's presidency, a lose that had to be recouped. By the end of Reagan's first term, however, just two years into the recovery, after peaking at just over 10%, unemployment was back down to roughly 7.3%., 0.2% lower than what it was at the end of Carter's term!

By the way, Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of roughly 11.83%. At the end of his first term it was all the way back down to 4%. Investment soared, and the pressure that pushed the dramatic change in employment demographics eased.

But I'm still waiting for Dad2three to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income. I'm still wondering how Dante, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for Dad2three to explain why the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair. How that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality. And why it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others.

Inquiring minds still want to know.

Want to know what? YOU are a simpleton and LIAR?

Your chart in the above affirms the very history I related in the above regarding the rise and fall of the unemployment rate during Reagan's FIRST term, though your numbers are a few tenths of a percent higher. Mine are from memory. Close enough. You just don't know the history, youngster, and can't grasp the larger complexities of the decade of Stagflation, not to mention the energy crisis, while you stupidly expect economic reforms to have an immediate impact.

"Oh, look, the president signed it," said the double-digit rates of inflation and interest. "Whew! We can change now and get that unemployment rate down at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow. Get that memo out right away, and send a copy to Carter."

LOL!

You're a boorish little twit and a bit of a sociopath, I suspect.

Once again:

But I'm still waiting for Dad2three to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income. I'm still wondering how Dante, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for Dad2three to explain why the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair. How that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality. And why it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others.

Inquiring minds still want to know.

 

[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?

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?

I agree. I'd much rather some undeserving asshole in DC gets to spend my money instead of my kids.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

To be or not to be.

 

[bripat9643]

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

What a giant load of horse manure. Taking from some and giving to others is exactly how the government redistributes wealth. You have to be a complete fucking moron not to understand that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

What a giant load of horse manure. Taking from some and giving to others is exactly how the government redistributes wealth. You have to be a complete fucking moron not to understand that.

He's not a moron - he's a liar.
He KNOWS what he says is wrong but he says it anyway.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

What a giant load of horse manure. Taking from some and giving to others is exactly how the government redistributes wealth. You have to be a complete fucking moron not to understand that.

Well yeah, you're talking to the troll known as "Rightwinger..."

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

yes, this is because the liberals destroyed the family and schools rendering most unfit to hold middle class jobs. Then they shipped 40 million jobs off shore with liberal unions and the highest tax rates in the world.

that is way way too complicated for a liberal to understand. Sorry

 

[dblack]

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?