Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

[miami_thomas]

No, you are wrong

You belong to a society. You are expected to contribute to society and the society as a whole, decides how best to use those contributions

Every American does better as a part of a society than they would do as an individual

wow, just wow...so I not only have to WORK to provide for my family, I'm suppose to WORK to take care of everybody else?
since this is how it is suppose to be, I'm still waiting for your paychecks I said pretty please for.

Yes you are...

Just like people work to help support you, your children and grandchildren. We are a society. We are stronger as a whole than as a group of individuals who only look out for themselves

Then why did individuals in America succeed in creating so much when communist countries failed? The truth is everyone works harder when it is for themselves and their intermediate family. When it is for someone they don't even know they really could care less.

 

[Intense]

Now you are being childish

Since the Reagan revolution worker protections have eroded for the benefit of the wealthy. The amount that the wealthy are expected to contribute to the society has been repeatedly reduced. More income and wealth is protected

All this was done under the guise of trickle down economics. Provide more money at the top and watch it trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs and a rising economic tide

Guess what happened? The wealthy just kept the extra money

Shocking isn't it?

Yes trickle down is a sham. Who in their right mind would believe that extra money is going to magically appear in their hands through no effort of their own? Oh I forgot. YOU think that. You think people are just supposed to have money and if they don't it's someone elses responsibility to get it for them.

Whether trickle down works or not, you are still dodging the fact that it was NOT wealth redistribution. No money was taken from the poor and given to the rich. We're still waiting for you to tell us a specific occurrence of that.

Yes it was taken from the working class and given to the rich. The mechanism was low wages and reducing benefits. Meanwhile, the wealthy were given reduced tax rates, more ways to shield their earnings from taxation as well as government protection of their investments

Why does our society value investment earnings over Labor earnings?

The Golden Rule.....He who has the gold makes the rules

I agree with you there. I truly believe that all income, by any means that is taxable, be taxed at the same rate, rich and poor.

 

[kwc57]

Show me anything that supports your bizarre definition of redistribution of wealth. That redistribution can go both ways. Right now it is going from the middle class to the wealthy

The wealthy are accumulating more money not less

seeing the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes does not support your claim.

I'm afraid it supports exactly what I am saying

The reason they pay 70% of the taxes is that they make 70% of the income. That is because our nations wealth has been redistributed from the working class to your precious 10%

You sir, are willfully lying.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

View attachment 17463

 

[miami_thomas]

Let me see......so money is taken from one group and REDISTRIBUTED to another

Now, which group in our society is gaining wealth and which is losing wealth?

Good god it's like explaining things to a 5 year old. The reason the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is NOT wealth redistribution is because money the rich aren't getting richer through money being TAKEN from the poor.

Wealth being taken from the rich and given to the poor is wealth redistribution because money is being reallocated involunatrily from one group to another.

Do you get it yet?

Now you are being childish

Since the Reagan revolution worker protections have eroded for the benefit of the wealthy. The amount that the wealthy are expected to contribute to the society has been repeatedly reduced. More income and wealth is protected

All this was done under the guise of trickle down economics. Provide more money at the top and watch it trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs and a rising economic tide

Guess what happened? The wealthy just kept the extra money

Shocking isn't it?

The trickle down affect is what made this country. Now with liberals making it less and less profitable to hire workers and to start new ventures of course they are keeping their money. Why risk it when the odds are stacked against you?

 

[miami_thomas]

. Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger
Welfare, housing subsidies and food stamps help employers pay lower wages and make more profit at taxpayers expense


Afraid I will need more explanation. Don't see how you are drawing this conclusion.

If you own a business in a high cost of living area and pay your workers a wage where they cannot afford the rent, food, utilities you are in fact, asking the taxpayer to make up the difference through food stamps, rent subsidies and other public assistance

The taxpayers subsidize the workers and the wealthy profit from substandard wages

But at the same time you are doing that you are increasing demand and increasing the cost of said things so it kind of contradicts itself. That is why we have always had to borrow to pay for welfare because the more you offer the higher the demand then the higher the costs.

 

[miami_thomas]

Yes trickle down is a sham. Who in their right mind would believe that extra money is going to magically appear in their hands through no effort of their own? Oh I forgot. YOU think that. You think people are just supposed to have money and if they don't it's someone elses responsibility to get it for them.

Whether trickle down works or not, you are still dodging the fact that it was NOT wealth redistribution. No money was taken from the poor and given to the rich. We're still waiting for you to tell us a specific occurrence of that.

Yes it was taken from the working class and given to the rich. The mechanism was low wages and reducing benefits. Meanwhile, the wealthy were given reduced tax rates, more ways to shield their earnings from taxation as well as government protection of their investments

Why does our society value investment earnings over Labor earnings?

The Golden Rule.....He who has the gold makes the rules

I agree with you there. I truly believe that all income, by any means that is taxable, be taxed at the same rate, rich and poor.

The only way that can happen is with a fair tax. Any other tax will never be truly equal. A fair tax means even those that work under the table would have to pay tax.

 

[kwc57]

Like any other worker, I was paid value for value. The Government worker is entrusted with the expenditure of billions in taxpayer dollars. It is a public trust on which highly qualified individuals are needed to ensure the taxpayer gets the most for his tax dollar

And to date/ MOST Government overspends and demands more as they fail...try again.

I worked for the Dept of Defense. We helped to create the most powerful and effective fighting force in the history of mankind. Something all Americans can be proud of

So you swept and mopped the floors to make sure high level people making important decisions didn't slip and injure themselves. You sir are a great American hero.

 

[Claudette]

Redistribution of wealth is exactly what it says it is.

Its taking money from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn't.

Of course the earners have no say in the matter and I'm sure the takers dont' give a shit.

 

[Intense]

. Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger
Welfare, housing subsidies and food stamps help employers pay lower wages and make more profit at taxpayers expense


Afraid I will need more explanation. Don't see how you are drawing this conclusion.

If you own a business in a high cost of living area and pay your workers a wage where they cannot afford the rent, food, utilities you are in fact, asking the taxpayer to make up the difference through food stamps, rent subsidies and other public assistance

The taxpayers subsidize the workers and the wealthy profit from substandard wages

Stop protecting and subsidizing Monopolies and you might find more open competition and fairer pricing. No Government action is without unintended consequences. Sometimes the meddling itself causes the compound problems.

 

[Bern80]

Yes it was taken from the working class and given to the rich. The mechanism was low wages and reducing benefits. Meanwhile, the wealthy were given reduced tax rates, more ways to shield their earnings from taxation as well as government protection of their investments.

Which again meets no definition of wealth redistribution. One more time; for a redistribution to occur it must be taken from one and given to another, like welfare, you know, the thing you don't want to admit is real wealth redistribution. Even if I accept that what you say happened actually happened that still isn't wealth redistribution. What you don't get is that fluctuations in earnings across classes is not always wealth redistribution. If the earnings of the poor go down AS THE RESULT of what was theres being taken from them and given to the rich, that would be weatlh redistribution. And that is not what happened under Reagan. Were their policies put in place that benifitted the rich? Certainly. Did those same policies change the the ability of the poor and middle class to earn money? NO.

Why does our society value investment earnings over Labor earnings?

The Golden Rule.....He who has the gold makes the rules

I already explained why. Because investment is a crucial part in starting a business and growing business which leads to more jobs. Thus you don't create tax policy that disincentivizes that investment. That's why investments are taxed at such a low rate. I get you don't like that inequality and really neither do I, but what is bazar is you would rather raise the tax rate on capital gains equal to that of income tax rate as opposed to lower the income tax rate to that of capital gains. Why is that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Even if the argument holds water (which it doesn't), it probanbly doesn't occur to those complaining about those greedy and/or eeeeeevul rich who pay those low wages that must be boosted by government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. that those same 'rich' folks are payiong most of the taxes that make that subsidized housing and food stamps possible.

But that is a flawed argument anyway--a point that any good debater worth his or her salt would rip to shreds instantly in a formal debate.

First there is no comparison between investment income and earned wages.

Investment income always involves risk. Millions who took the risk to invest in real estatein the year or two before the housing bubble collapse took a blood bath on most of those investments. Many of the rest of us, who had prospered during the good years, saw the value of our property decline 20%, 30%, or more. Those who invest in a new business or who loan venture capital for a new business or expansion of an existing one risk losing all or most of their inestment if the business does not succeed or a major contract defaults.

Most of us who were even modestly invested in the stock market saw half the value of our investments disappear in the wake of the housing bubble collapse in 2008, and even now the market is timid, sluggish, and a real crap shoot if you put your savings there. But it is essential to invest to avoid taking a loss as inflation is hugely outpacing any interest you can earn on your money these days. And unless there is intentional economic sabotage or fraud, there is no recourse for the investor to recoup any of his/her losses.

Those working for wages are required to risk nothing that they already own. They sell their labor for an agreed price and have legal recourse if they are not paid as agreed.

It is true that most of those operating businesses are dependent on the laborer to make their profits. It is also true that the laborer would likely have no income at all were it not for the businesses who hire them. But labor is worth only as much as it nets the business owner a profit. If the laborer is only earning the businessman $8/hour and the businessman is paying him $12/hour, the business will not succeed. And when it closes, neither the businessman nor the laborer receives any income.

In a free market, which is the ONLY means by which ALL can aspire to prosper, labor is a commodity as much as is infrastructure, lights, electricity, raw materials, advertising, taxes, etc. etc. It is worth only as much as the market will bear. Smart people make choices that will make them more valuable to an employer. The unambitious, entitlement mentality crowd too often make choices that qualify them for food stamps.