The Flawed Concept of "Wealth Redistribution"

[The Rabbi]

Simple..

Remove previously granted tax breaks on the wealthy and "trickle them down" to the working class

OK. Maybe third time's a charm.
What programs and policies that "the rich" have instituted have contributed to draining money away from "working Americans"?
The fact that you are avoiding answering this tells me you have no answer. But the very fact that some people are very wealthy and others very poor suggests to you that there must be something diabolical in the system to account for it.

The tax code consists of thousands of pages of exemptions, very few which are written to benefit the working class.
The current tax rate on the wealthy has been reduced over the last 30 years with a promise that this decrease in taxation will "trickle down" in the form of more jobs and a higher standard of living for the working class. As is clearly evident, jobs have disappeared and the standard of living for basics of life (housing, healthcare, energy, education) have decreased

That's it? That's your proof?
The tax code consists of thousands of pages because it is directed largely at corporations, which have complicated issues. Some of these issues are the result of national policy of one kind or another.
The wealthy (actually high income--you're a slow learner I see) pay a larger percentage of total tax than they ever did.
Jobs have not disappeared in the last 30 years. There are many more jobs even now than there were 30 years ago. Standards of living have increased.
You'll need to do better than that even to be taken seriously.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's common knowledge that the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay roughly 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes. Why? Because with great risk comes rewards...they may be taxed at lower levels but they still pay more taxes than everyone else already.....now you progressives want more? Where the fuck will it end?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Really....how much more do you progressives want????!!!! Answer the goddam question!!!!

 

[boedicca]

In Pleasanton CA last year, there was an incident with the Representative when he held a citizens' gathering. One of the group challenged him to specify what the tax rate should be. He answered 90%. The group was stunned.

It is not good for our society to have a small minority fund a large portion of the government.

That minority will be very tempted to collude with politicians in cozy Crony relationships to make sure they get something "special" for their tax "contributions". The big majority that pays little to nothing are lulled into complacency with government handouts, breeding the initiative out of them.

Those who are worried about the stratification of our society should think about how the tax structure worsens it.

 

[Toro]

You realize none of that proves what you contend. Right?

Far more than an anecdote about a revolver.

 

[Toro]

He took the chance and he should renumerated for it. But that doesn't mean his compensation should be taxed a lower rate than the person who opted not to take the risk and not to get the big reward. If some makes $1,000,000,000 from capital gains, he should not be taxed at a lower rate than someone who makes $100,000.

Baloney...with risk comes reward....why should a guy who's got the balls to put his money on the line be taxed at the same rate as someone who just plays it safe? Someone who's taxed at 15 to 25% of a million dollars pays more in taxes than someone who has a SALARY of $100k and is in the 30% tax bracket.

So what? Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't be rewarded. What I'm arguing is that someone shouldn't be discriminated against because of what they do. That is what you are arguing. You are arguing that certain professions are more worthy than others. Why not tax doctors less than waiters then? I think we can all agree that doctors are way more important than waiters, and even though they make much more money, we should tax doctors less because they are more important than waiters.

That's your logic.

And why should someone make less if they work really hard and earn a high salary? If I sit on my lazy ass and not work but make $1 million in capital gains because I found a good adviser, why should I pay less in tax than someone who works 100 hours a week and sacrifices everything to make $1 million in salary and bonus?

Why should someone who makes $100,000 in salary pay a higher rate of tax than someone who speculates in the market and makes $100,000 in capital gains?

The tax code recognizes gains AND losses. If you make capital gains, you pay tax. If you make capital losses, you get a tax shield. The tax code recognizes risk by offering to reimburse the person who loses money. Your argument assumes a one-way outcome in the tax code.

The idea that labor is a commodity and there is no risk is a specious and a wrong one. Tell that to the investment banker who made a living designing structured finance product who can't find work because his market has imploded, or the 55 year-old plant worker who has seen his job go to Asia.

 

[Toro]

I work with an amount of capital that has more zeroes than you have fingers, so I am acutely aware of the role capital plays.

Nor am I arguing the level of taxes. I am arguing for equivalence of taxation. If you want to argue that we should all have lower taxes, that is a different argument. But I see no reason to discriminate against labor in the tax code.

It's sad that you don't appreciate what you are working with.

You must be like a monkey with a typewriter.

It must be pretty embarrassing that a monkey with a typewriter understands this better than you, then.

 

[antagon]

And of course.. ones like you and the ones you vote for get to decide how much is enough for someone.... I mean, how DARE they earn more

Everyone has equal access to what government is supposed to provide... and the government can take into account all earnings or GDP or whatever else you wish to use and derive that (hypothetically) 18% is required of that amount to run the government.. and no matter who earns how much, each DOLLAR earned is taxed...

You can use the same roads as the rich guy.. the same national defense protects you both.. the same courts are there for when you break the law or need the legal system to resolve a dispute


So easy to vilify the 'evil rich'... the class warfare and entitlement junkies have made an art of it

get off the 'evil rich' soap box and have a real discussion. you sound ridiculous.

i have 7 vehicles, 3 addresses and 9 cell phones 3 land lines 4 websites and 2.33 businesses...BY NO MEANS am i rich or anything, but trying to make a good living, i use the same roads as dude in my scenario B, but significantly more. in the process, i could appreciate other economic upsides to your nemesis redistribution and progressive tax, but that may be too advanced for you to take in. you cant even appreciate the potential for wealthy people to use infrastructure commensurate with their commerce.

that whole argument is moot, really. tax is not a usage of resources fee. it is just a necessary evil to keep the show going on the government end. a flat tax focuses on the moot end of the stick when what the government has to consider is a means of finance which has the least impact on the larger economy.

think..
scenario C - a middle income earner... 40k pays 8k @20% for 32% of r/e to tax. ddave's middle-class smackdown.

if the rate is flat and 'fair' the burden is bottom-heavy and oppressive. your arbitrary rate of 18% is ..arbitrary.. everyone wants to play art laffer from the hip when they sell their fallacy, kool-aid mode.

wait..

and no matter who earns how much, each DOLLAR earned is taxed...

... you're a no deductability kook, too, or did i misinterpret that?

 

[boedicca]

Blah Blah Blah

I understand the difference between Capital and Labor, something which quite apparently escapes you.

But thanks for playing!

 

[Foxfyre]

The living wage for working Americans has steadily decreased over the last 20 years. They work more hours for less reimbursement. Health costs are out of reach for many. Education debt is ruining the next generation. Housing and energy costs exceed take home pay. The American dream is turning into just a dream.

I don't advocate a Robin Hood handout of cash. I do advocate more tax incentives for healthcare and education costs. I would like to see more Government subsidy of affordable housing and energy credits.

Do you blame the rich man who took greater risks and worked smarter and invested more wisely and now pretty much affords what he wants for the plight of the one who was lazy or played it safer, made some unwise choices, and invested less wisely and now struggles to make ends meet?

The super wealthy 1% of this country who control 34% of the available wealth do not get that way by taking risks. They get that way by making sure there are no risks.
The golden rule of "He who has the gold, makes the rules" ensures that the super wealthy just get richer

Your comment here is soooooo poorly informed and doesn't merit a response, so I will simply acknowledge it. You obviously have read none of the rebuttal already presented for it, or you blew it off as too inconvenient to your point of view perhaps?

 

[Toro]

Blah Blah Blah

I understand the difference between Capital and Labor, something which quite apparently escapes you.

But thanks for playing!

rofl

Whatever you need to help you sleep at night...

 

[DiamondDave]

And of course.. ones like you and the ones you vote for get to decide how much is enough for someone.... I mean, how DARE they earn more

Everyone has equal access to what government is supposed to provide... and the government can take into account all earnings or GDP or whatever else you wish to use and derive that (hypothetically) 18% is required of that amount to run the government.. and no matter who earns how much, each DOLLAR earned is taxed...

You can use the same roads as the rich guy.. the same national defense protects you both.. the same courts are there for when you break the law or need the legal system to resolve a dispute


So easy to vilify the 'evil rich'... the class warfare and entitlement junkies have made an art of it

get off the 'evil rich' soap box and have a real discussion. you sound ridiculous.

i have 7 vehicles, 3 addresses and 9 cell phones 3 land lines 4 websites and 2.33 businesses...BY NO MEANS am i rich or anything, but trying to make a good living, i use the same roads as dude in my scenario B, but significantly more. in the process, i could appreciate other economic upsides to your nemesis redistribution and progressive tax, but that may be too advanced for you to take in. you cant even appreciate the potential for wealthy people to use infrastructure commensurate with their commerce.

that whole argument is moot, really. tax is not a usage of resources fee. it is just a necessary evil to keep the show going on the government end. a flat tax focuses on the moot end of the stick when what the government has to consider is a means of finance which has the least impact on the larger economy.

think..
scenario C - a middle income earner... 40k pays 8k @20% for 32% of r/e to tax. ddave's middle-class smackdown.

if the rate is flat and 'fair' the burden is bottom-heavy and oppressive. your arbitrary rate of 18% is ..arbitrary.. everyone wants to play art laffer from the hip when they sell their fallacy, kool-aid mode.

wait..

and no matter who earns how much, each DOLLAR earned is taxed...

... you're a no deductability kook, too, or did i misinterpret that?

Yes.. .18 was a complete pull out the ass number.. I personally have to much to do at home and work to calculate the proper amount for the bloated US budget

And yes.. I am a no deductions 'kook', even though I can personally benefit from deductions for mortgage interest on 2 properties, 2 kids, charitable deductions, etc

The progressive system is what is oppressive... with the 'no payers' playing the game with no stakes, while being able to cash out.... I am not into oppressive or whatever else you wish to call it... And I certainly am not into selective equality as experienced in our current bastard of a government led by the leftists

 

[Immanuel]

Just a side point...

I will pose it as a question:

Who did Robin Hood rob?

Also... that is one hot chick on my avatar... don't ya think?

Well actually Robin Hood robbed the government. Some here think that is exactly what we want to do when we suggest that the government reduce taxes and spend less.

Is that chick on your Avatar you?

It is interesting how many people think that Robin Hood robbed the rich... he actually robbed the government like you said.
haha.. no that hideous thing isn't me... it is my wife.

Well, actually, since the rich were the government in the days of Robin Hood, he robbed the rich not the government.

Immie

 

[Dr Grump]

Wealth is never to be redistributed.
Wealth is and should always be EARNED.

So if a multi-million dies his estate should go to the state, not his beneficiaries (after all, they didn't earn it)....

You wouldn't happen to be a White House spokesperson would you? Nice twist. Obfuscate much?

no

and

no

 

[Foxfyre]

Well actually Robin Hood robbed the government. Some here think that is exactly what we want to do when we suggest that the government reduce taxes and spend less.

Is that chick on your Avatar you?

It is interesting how many people think that Robin Hood robbed the rich... he actually robbed the government like you said.
haha.. no that hideous thing isn't me... it is my wife.

Well, actually, since the rich were the government in the days of Robin Hood, he robbed the rich not the government.

Immie

No, he was taking tax revenues from the government--tax revenues which he believed were unlawfully or unethically taken from the poor. Robin Hood gave no impression that he had any problem with or disdain for the rich. After all, in the most common accounts of the legend, did he not covet the hand of the fair maid, Marion, highborn lady of the court, probable at least distant royalty? She was certainly no poor peasant girl.

 

[Chris]

We have been having a redistribution of wealth for the last 30 years as the top 5% of the population has benefited from relaxed tax and business regulations and the standard of living for the remaining 95% of the population has diminished

I agree that the redistribution of wealth has been bad for the country

That's it in a nutshell.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich, and the derivative bubble have stolen the wealth of ordinary Americans and given it to the rich.

It's a disgrace.

 

[jreeves]

We have been having a redistribution of wealth for the last 30 years as the top 5% of the population has benefited from relaxed tax and business regulations and the standard of living for the remaining 95% of the population has diminished

I agree that the redistribution of wealth has been bad for the country

That's it in a nutshell.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich, and the derivative bubble have stolen the wealth of ordinary Americans and given it to the rich.

It's a disgrace.

I suppose Clinton's tax cuts were fine though?

 

[sparky]

Ckinton and Ruebin recinded Glass Steagal to allow it to happen........

 

[skookerasbil]

We have been having a redistribution of wealth for the last 30 years as the top 5% of the population has benefited from relaxed tax and business regulations and the standard of living for the remaining 95% of the population has diminished

I agree that the redistribution of wealth has been bad for the country

meh................

11 trillion spent on the "war on pverty" over the last 40 years..............FTMFL!!!

Time for you to go out and get a real job s0n........stop being jealous of everybody who is sucessful!!!

 

[editec]

First of all, Kudos for wanting to discuss this issue at all.

The premise of "wealth redistribution" is that it is unfair when one person has more wealth than another. However, this whole assessment of fairness is based on a faulty principle. That principle is called "zero sum economics", and it is a flawed assumption.

No, actually, the argument for wealth distribution it is NOT based on a zero sum economic theory.

It never was, either.

It's actually based on the reconition of the power of compounding interest, and the theory that in a capitalist society, those with excess capital have such an advantage over those without it, that the game is wildly to their advantage, and that advantage compounds over time, too.

Which, just in case you have yet to notice it, it does.

There may be truly great arguments to refute wealth redistribution ( I can certainly think of a few good aruments not to redistrubute wealth) but the ZERO SUM ECONOMIC canard you're attmpting to foist onto the proponents of wealth distribution isn't one of them.

Your whole argument is, therefore, based on a false premise about what the rationale for wealth distribution really is.

This is what happens when you only listen or study one side of an argument, ya know.

You can't really argue with your opponents UNLESS YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE.