US Now Redistributes More Than $2 Trillion a Year or 81% of Receipts

[NYcarbineer]

Here's another gem from the study:

In addition to transfers and consumption items, governments in the United States also spend a large amount each year financing debt. In this study, this spending is distributed to each family based upon the family's share of all other government spending.

So, somehow, a share the interest paid on debt acquired 30 years ago counts as a redistribution of wealth to some poor person today.

 

[hazlnut]

well how lovely eh? give you people working and struggling to get by the warm fuzzies?
links and a video at site

SNIP:


For the record… The US collected $2.45 trillion in receipts in 2012.
And, according to this latest report, the government redistributed $2 trillion or 81% of those receipts.
And Obama wants to redistribute even more.

The Daily Caller reported:
Government redistributes more than $2 trillion in one year | The Daily Caller


Government policies effectively redistributed more than $2 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American society to the bottom 60 percent in 2012, according to a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

The study tracked the beneficiaries of government spending programs largely paid for by taxpayers who are not very big beneficiaries of those programs.


all of it here
It?s an Obama World? US Now Redistributes More Than $2 Trillion a Year or 81% of Receipts | The Gateway Pundit

Stephanie, are you not a "reader"??

Note to readers: It is important to note that the results featured in this paper assume a “cost of services” methodological approach. This means, among other things, that most public goods like national defense are assumed to be distributed evenly throughout the population. In the interest of full transparency, the appendix of this paper presents results under an alternative “benefit principle” approach, which distributes many public goods like national defense based on income, under the assumption that high-income families benefit more from public goods than low-income families. Under this approach, the aggregate amount of redistribution from the top 40 percent to the bottom 60 percent is $1.2 trillion, approximately 40 percent less than the $2 trillion estimated under the cost of services approach. For more information about the differences between the cost of services approach and the benefit principle approach, see this paper’s methodology section and the appendix.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All I have to say is this:

Liberals, are you happy? Everything you want to be done has been done.

The results are in. Your policies suck.

Have a nice day.

Which programs would you end?

there are tons of programs which can be ended.

How? Are you forgetting we have a democratic republic? You people on the fringe who want to roll back the US government to the Gilded Age will never have the votes.

Would you prefer an undemocratic form of government that might give you oligarchial powers?

 

[Spoonman]

If it's including social security and Medicare, then it's a dishonest premise. Those people paid into the system and are not leeches, they're retirees.

but of course the letf loves to claim those are entitlements when it suits their argument.

 

[Spoonman]

Which programs would you end?

there are tons of programs which can be ended.

How? Are you forgetting we have a democratic republic? You people on the fringe who want to roll back the US government to the Gilded Age will never have the votes.

Would you prefer an undemocratic form of government that might give you oligarchial powers?

you mean like infringing on constitutional rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Social security, medicaid and prescription drug programs. Those are the biggest drains.

Interestingly, if SS was a viable and ethically sound program (which it isn't), then the money to pay back those who are retiring that paid in wouldn't come out of the general budget. they would come out of funds set aside and appropriated for such. They dont. Because SS is just another tax on americans and goes directly into general budget appropriations.

Yes and no.

Social Security must be separated from Medicare (and Part D) as it is a completely different structure.

Social Security WOULD be viable IF congress had not robbed the funds for the last half-century. SS is about to go negative for the first time. IF the funds accumulated had been left alone, it would carry the program through for decades. but our government stole all the funds and now claims that retirees are on the dole. SS is a bad deal all around, but those who were forced into the program have every right to expect a return on what they paid.

Medicare is a different story, it is purely an entitlement.

 

[Vox]

Which programs would you end?

there are tons of programs which can be ended.

How? Are you forgetting we have a democratic republic? You people on the fringe who want to roll back the US government to the Gilded Age will never have the votes.

Would you prefer an undemocratic form of government that might give you oligarchial powers?

simply. cut the funding.

I am not talking about signature SS, medicare or medicaid - there are tons of doubling programs and just simple waste which was enacted not by laws but by executive decisions - and the same way they can be cut.

 

[Vox]

Social security, medicaid and prescription drug programs. Those are the biggest drains.

Interestingly, if SS was a viable and ethically sound program (which it isn't), then the money to pay back those who are retiring that paid in wouldn't come out of the general budget. they would come out of funds set aside and appropriated for such. They dont. Because SS is just another tax on americans and goes directly into general budget appropriations.

Yes and no.

Social Security must be separated from Medicare (and Part D) as it is a completely different structure.

Social Security WOULD be viable IF congress had not robbed the funds for the last half-century. SS is about to go negative for the first time. IF the funds accumulated had been left alone, it would carry the program through for decades. but our government stole all the funds and now claims that retirees are on the dole. SS is a bad deal all around, but those who were forced into the program have every right to expect a return on what they paid.

Medicare is a different story, it is purely an entitlement.

Medicare is actually paid for ( at least partially) as well.
So it is kind of insurance for the later years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Including tax welfare for the rich and the companies/ So you want just a straight tax with no deductions?

Is it burglary welfare when you come home and your apartment hasn't been robbed?

I would try to see your point of view, but that would involve a power drill and the destruction of 90% of my brain mass, so could you just explain it instead?

 

[Stephanie]

Didn't you say once you worked for the government? Didn't you say you worked in a school?

You know they're counting taxes for public education as a redistribution of wealth in this study?

...because poor kids get to go to school no matter how poor their parents are.

what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
I'm not interested in your dramatics or sobbing stories
this thread isn't about me...so you can go to hell too

US Now Redistributes More Than $2 Trillion a Year or 81% of Receipts

You're complaining because the Rich pay a bigger share of their income as taxes than you do.

I'm asking you, what are you willing to give up in order to increase your share of the bill?

you're a frikken joke and I don't give a shit what you ask...Hold your breath until I answer it
DISMISSED loser

 

[G.T.]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Medicare is actually paid for ( at least partially) as well.
So it is kind of insurance for the later years.

Medicare isn't even close to sustainable, and never has been.

But even Medicare is less objectionable than "Part D."

For what I would cut, that would be the first priority - repeal part D.

 

[Vox]

Medicare is actually paid for ( at least partially) as well.
So it is kind of insurance for the later years.

Medicare isn't even close to sustainable, and never has been.

But even Medicare is less objectionable than "Part D."

For what I would cut, that would be the first priority - repeal part D.

of course it is not. But it is not a pure entitlement like welfare, foodstamps of medicaid is.
what I would cut or change - is the formula by which it grows every year ( and all others as well) - how come all those programs spend 40% of the funds on the bureaucracy to maintain it?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social security, medicaid and prescription drug programs. Those are the biggest drains.

Interestingly, if SS was a viable and ethically sound program (which it isn't), then the money to pay back those who are retiring that paid in wouldn't come out of the general budget. they would come out of funds set aside and appropriated for such. They dont. Because SS is just another tax on americans and goes directly into general budget appropriations.

Yes and no.

Social Security must be separated from Medicare (and Part D) as it is a completely different structure.

Social Security WOULD be viable IF congress had not robbed the funds for the last half-century. SS is about to go negative for the first time. IF the funds accumulated had been left alone, it would carry the program through for decades. but our government stole all the funds and now claims that retirees are on the dole. SS is a bad deal all around, but those who were forced into the program have every right to expect a return on what they paid.

Medicare is a different story, it is purely an entitlement.

I did seperate them. They were listed individually. And as I said, if social security was a viable and ethically sound program, the money would be there adn i wouldn't be paying for current retirees benefits. But these programs are always like this because politicians and bureaucrats can not properly handle other people's money. Ever. under any circumstance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

there are tons of programs which can be ended.

How? Are you forgetting we have a democratic republic? You people on the fringe who want to roll back the US government to the Gilded Age will never have the votes.

Would you prefer an undemocratic form of government that might give you oligarchial powers?

you mean like infringing on constitutional rights?

I bet you think that meant something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social security, medicaid and prescription drug programs. Those are the biggest drains.

Interestingly, if SS was a viable and ethically sound program (which it isn't), then the money to pay back those who are retiring that paid in wouldn't come out of the general budget. they would come out of funds set aside and appropriated for such. They dont. Because SS is just another tax on americans and goes directly into general budget appropriations.

Yes and no.

Social Security must be separated from Medicare (and Part D) as it is a completely different structure.

Social Security WOULD be viable IF congress had not robbed the funds for the last half-century. SS is about to go negative for the first time. IF the funds accumulated had been left alone, it would carry the program through for decades. but our government stole all the funds and now claims that retirees are on the dole. SS is a bad deal all around, but those who were forced into the program have every right to expect a return on what they paid.

Medicare is a different story, it is purely an entitlement.

I did seperate them. They were listed individually. And as I said, if social security was a viable and ethically sound program, the money would be there adn i wouldn't be paying for current retirees benefits. But these programs are always like this because politicians and bureaucrats can not properly handle other people's money. Ever. under any circumstance.

You're not paying for current retirees' benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So they are counting payments made out of the payroll tax as a redistribution of wealth?????

 

[TemplarKormac]

How? Are you forgetting we have a democratic republic? You people on the fringe who want to roll back the US government to the Gilded Age will never have the votes.

Would you prefer an undemocratic form of government that might give you oligarchial powers?

you mean like infringing on constitutional rights?

I bet you think that meant something.

You think you can skirt the question. If you want to know the truth, we're living under an oligarchical government now, no thanks to what you put in the White House. You'll pay for it dearly in 2014 and 2016.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't you say once you worked for the government? Didn't you say you worked in a school?

You know they're counting taxes for public education as a redistribution of wealth in this study?

...because poor kids get to go to school no matter how poor their parents are.

what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
I'm not interested in your dramatics or sobbing stories
this thread isn't about me...so you can go to hell too



US Now Redistributes More Than $2 Trillion a Year or 81% of Receipts

Despite the massive redistribution of wealth , some ignorant scumbag started a thread claiming that the US has a "Capitalist" economy.

.

That's interesting. So you're defining capitalism as a system where the poor get no help from the government?

Very interesting.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, i am, dullard. We've gone over this.

Democrats Deny Social Security?s Red Ink

Politicians are paying SS payments through the general budget, and are still running into a deficit. Making it even worse than simply taking my money. They are borrowing money to make the payments. SS is FUBAR after years of robbing from the so called "trust fund". Which the existence of is debatable.