CDZ redistribution of wealth

[BULLDOG]

Sales taxes, being regressive, are a good example of redistribution upward. Use taxes, as taxing foreign-based companies for using a nation's infrastructure and markets for making a profit, seem more reasonable. Why should a company that benefits from doing business in one place pay nothing for the privilege just because the mailing address is on the other side of a political border?

ROFL liar

Having a hard time finding the lie. Are you saying sales taxes are not regressive?

 

[Andylusion]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

 

[BULLDOG]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

Reducing social programs while giving more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment. Trickle down has never worked.

 

[Andylusion]

Sales taxes, being regressive, are a good example of redistribution upward. Use taxes, as taxing foreign-based companies for using a nation's infrastructure and markets for making a profit, seem more reasonable. Why should a company that benefits from doing business in one place pay nothing for the privilege just because the mailing address is on the other side of a political border?

Really. So you are telling me that the sales taxes on my $3,000 Grand Marquis, is higher than a rich person buying a Lotus Luxury car for $80K?

There is nothing regressive about the sales tax.

As for companies not paying tax, you are crazy.

First off, most of the infrastructure you refer to is not provided by the Federal Government.

Most of the roads are provided by State governments. And of course, sewers and water and local utilities, are provided by state and local municipalities. And every corporation is paying state and local taxes.

Even if you look at Interstate system, the Federal Department of Transportation's budget is $77 Billion (as of 2014). The corporate income tax revenue is $333 Billion.

Corporations are coughing up far more in taxes, than they are using in infrastructure.

Now it's true that companies are off-shoring their profits. Now what does that actually mean? It means that if you have business going on overseas, and you make money there, you don't bring that money back to the US.

Why? Because of the taxes. Here you are complaining that companies are not paying enough tax, and it is exactly because of the tax that they are keeping their profits out of the country.

See, you want to beat people with a stick, and have people voluntarily come to you to be beaten. That's never going to happen.

Lower taxes, and more profits will come to the US and be taxed.

Of course, I would rather have zero tax. I'd much rather that companies have the money, and use it to grow the economy and create wealth, and create more jobs. Better that, then the government blowing the money.

 

[Andylusion]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

Reducing social programs while giving more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment. Trickle down has never worked.

Now that's ironic.

You do realize that social programs are inherently "preferential treatment" right?

Second tax breaks are not preferential, when you are already taxing people a discriminatory.

If the tax rate on you is 10%, and the tax rate for me is 90%, and they give me a 10% tax break... only a moron would conclude that my 80% tax rate over your 10% is preferential.

 

[BULLDOG]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

Reducing social programs while giving more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment. Trickle down has never worked.

Now that's ironic.

You do realize that social programs are inherently "preferential treatment" right?

Second tax breaks are not preferential, when you are already taxing people a discriminatory.

If the tax rate on you is 10%, and the tax rate for me is 90%, and they give me a 10% tax break... only a moron would conclude that my 80% tax rate over your 10% is preferential.

But nobody is taxed at 90%. Many corporations effective rate is very low or, in some cases zero.

 

[Roadrunner]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Ask Hillary when she gets out of rehab.

She gets what, $250,000 for a speech?

I hope she runs on income inequality.

 

[there4eyeM]

Certainly, sales taxes (TVA, VAT, whatever) are regressive. The poor pay disproportionately to the upper income levels, by definition.

That extra-territorial headquarters excuse profit making from participation in a society and infrastructure is ludicrous.

 

[Andylusion]

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

Reducing social programs while giving more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment. Trickle down has never worked.

Now that's ironic.

You do realize that social programs are inherently "preferential treatment" right?

Second tax breaks are not preferential, when you are already taxing people a discriminatory.

If the tax rate on you is 10%, and the tax rate for me is 90%, and they give me a 10% tax break... only a moron would conclude that my 80% tax rate over your 10% is preferential.

But nobody is taxed at 90%. Many corporations effective rate is very low or, in some cases zero.

Ok, prove it. Name the company, or companies that are paying zero in tax. None of them are paying social security or medicaid for their employees? I'm sure the IRS would love to know this stunning revelation.

And again... very low is very good. I'd much rather a company have the money to invest in making us more wealthy, and creating jobs, than have some government stooge give out money to political supporters, for Solyndra or something.

I said "IF" the tax rate was 90% for me. It was an illustration to make a point.

Nearly half the country pays ZERO INCOME TAX. You said "more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment".

You pay zero, I pay 90%, and you give me a 10% break... that's not preferential treatment.

The bottom 50% of the entire country, pays 3% of all taxes. The top 25% of the whole country, pays 85% of all the taxes.

And you want to claim that's "preferential treatment"? You are wrong sir. People getting the preferential treatment, are the people who live off the taxes off the top 25%. And all you can do, is say it's not enough.

 

[Andylusion]

Certainly, sales taxes (TVA, VAT, whatever) are regressive. The poor pay disproportionately to the upper income levels, by definition.

That extra-territorial headquarters excuse profit making from participation in a society and infrastructure is ludicrous.

I see. So, we're assuming that the rich guy makes the same amount of purchases as a poor person, and thus the amount of tax paid is a larger portion of the poor persons income, thus in this example, it is a regressive tax.

So a dollar tax on a gallon of gas, is $1, and thus a person who earns only $100, that one dollars is larger portion of his income than someone who earns $10,000. Thus this is a regressive tax.

Do you fail to see the blatantly obvious problem here? The rich guy...... is going to buy more. The poor guy might only buy 1 gallon for his used Geo Metro. The rich guy is going to buy 100 gallons, for his Hummer.

Which one is paying more as a percent of their income in tax? Neither. Both are paying 1% of their yearly income in tax.

I paid $210 on my $3000 care. My neighbor who makes a substantial bit more than me, paid $2,300 on his RX-8 retail $33,000.

He has double my income, and paid 10 times my tax... but that's regressive because it was a flat 7% sales tax?

I don't buy it.

Again, they paying tons in taxes. Yes, moving their head quarters out of the country reduces their tax. That's good. Would you rather them move out of the country completely?

See, I actually want more wealth creation. I want more employment. Kind of hard to do that when you tax away their money. And again, your infrastructure argument is absolute crap. Companies pay far more in taxes, than the cost of the infrastructure.

 

[BULLDOG]

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

Equal opportunity is impossible. I have an uncle, who is an engineer. If I had been an engineer, he could get me a job fairly easy. In fact, he could likely get me a job right now if I wanted it.

How exactly would you propose to equalize opportunity between me who knows my Uncle, and all those who do not?

I also completely disagree with the idea that rich people have "received massive preferential treatment". That's just flat out false.

Brian Scudamore, didn't get any 'massive preferential treatment' when he was sitting at a McDonald's and saw a pickup truck with Mark's Hauling, and decided to do that, bought a $700 '76 Ford F-150 truck, and started hauling trash.

The "preferential treatment" Brian got, was that he worked his butt off hauling trash, which is why he's the multi-millionaire owner of 1-800-GOT-JUNK?.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01junk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

And the fact is, most wealthy people are wealthy because they earned it.

Lastly, why do you think that other people should pay more tax? How does that help anyone? Do you really think your life is going to magically improve because someone else is paying more tax?

Were the impoverished better off in the 1970s? Not at all.

And when you take money away from those who create jobs, like Brian Scudamore, how is fewer jobs being created a plus?

Reducing social programs while giving more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment. Trickle down has never worked.

Now that's ironic.

You do realize that social programs are inherently "preferential treatment" right?

Second tax breaks are not preferential, when you are already taxing people a discriminatory.

If the tax rate on you is 10%, and the tax rate for me is 90%, and they give me a 10% tax break... only a moron would conclude that my 80% tax rate over your 10% is preferential.

But nobody is taxed at 90%. Many corporations effective rate is very low or, in some cases zero.

Ok, prove it. Name the company, or companies that are paying zero in tax. None of them are paying social security or medicaid for their employees? I'm sure the IRS would love to know this stunning revelation.

And again... very low is very good. I'd much rather a company have the money to invest in making us more wealthy, and creating jobs, than have some government stooge give out money to political supporters, for Solyndra or something.

I said "IF" the tax rate was 90% for me. It was an illustration to make a point.

Nearly half the country pays ZERO INCOME TAX. You said "more breaks to the rich is preferential treatment".

You pay zero, I pay 90%, and you give me a 10% break... that's not preferential treatment.

The bottom 50% of the entire country, pays 3% of all taxes. The top 25% of the whole country, pays 85% of all the taxes.

And you want to claim that's "preferential treatment"? You are wrong sir. People getting the preferential treatment, are the people who live off the taxes off the top 25%. And all you can do, is say it's not enough.

No federal taxes. Your own chart was nothing but federal taxes
Many big U.S. corporations pay very little in taxes study Reuters

 

[there4eyeM]

Regressive taxation is exactly what we are talking about in discussion of redistribution from the bottom up. It is one of the most common and virulent of such methods.

Discussions about how and how much one person in a higher income bracket disposes of excess money does not address the reality of basics that cost a majority of people a greater percentage of what they earn.

Businesses do not pay their fair share when they take advantage of the markets, roads and communication centers of one area and slip off to remote post office boxes to hide themselves. They are present in one country for what they can take without a balanced return. The examples are everywhere.

This double game of taxation remaining national for assessment while profits can be played at the international level is another vicious example of redistribution in a direction that does not conform to the highest qualities of our species.

America was established on liberty, equality and brotherhood. People helped one another in a time that was simpler. The complexity of the modern world necessitates other approaches. When fairness is unattainable by one means, it must be obtained by changing means.

 

[dblack]

America was established on liberty, equality and brotherhood. People helped one another in a time that was simpler. The complexity of the modern world necessitates other approaches. When fairness is unattainable by one means, it must be obtained by changing means.

'Ends justifies the means' depends on the ends. And the means.

 

[danielpalos]

Would anyone mind changing our current regime so that we can "install" an "oil pump" onto the "engine" of our economy, through general forms of taxation instead of direct forms of taxation.

A general tax on Firms for unemployment compensation purposes is much simpler and more efficient for that reason alone. Solving simple poverty by bailing out capitalism like usual through sufficient socialism to correct for a Natural Rate of unemployment, could function as an oil pump in our economy by increasing liquidity for the least wealthy as well and ensuring a perfectly competitive medium of exchange can lubricate well, our political-economy.

 

[there4eyeM]

Replace the tax on workers income, which by some definitions should not be considered 'revenue', with a simple tax on employment paid by business. The pay to workers would be nominally less, but there would be no tax to them on it. This would be easier to monitor/enforce, cost everyone less and be more honest on every level.

 

[danielpalos]

Replace the tax on workers income, which by some definitions should not be considered 'revenue', with a simple tax on employment paid by business. The pay to workers would be nominally less, but there would be no tax to them on it. This would be easier to monitor/enforce, cost everyone less and be more honest on every level.

A warfare-State requires taxes on incomes to achieve command economics, productivity potentials while a welfare-State can rely on our Commerce Clause.

 

[dblack]

official poverty

 

[danielpalos]

Just a potential multiplier effect, waiting to bailout capitalism with a necessary and proper amount of socialism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Remember that there are more poor people and when more people have more money they consume more; a cure for the inflation problem. Capital released from retained liquidity on the part of the famous 1% would stimulate the economy. Increased corporate profits should ensue.
Wouldn't that be a 'win-win'?

 

[danielpalos]

Remember that there are more poor people and when more people have more money they consume more; a cure for the inflation problem. Capital released from retained liquidity on the part of the famous 1% would stimulate the economy. Increased corporate profits should ensue.
Wouldn't that be a 'win-win'?

sure, it makes capital sense. the right may have a problem with it because it is not social enough.