CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

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

Sigh..... Did you people ever fact check ANYTHING?

From your link:
"Many of the most profitable U.S. corporations paid little or no federal income tax from 2008 to 2012, according to a five-year study issued on Tuesday by a left-leaning tax activist group."

So there's your left-leaning tax group's claim.

Here's the SEC filing.

SEC Filings - Verizon

Note 13 Taxes. Ooops... it looks like they paid $11.1 Billion dollars in taxes between 2010 and 2012.

It's true that the effective tax rate for 2012 was in fact negative, but there's a reason. Again, you people never find out "why?" on anything. You act like judge jury and excutioner, without a clue what really happened.

From the same page in the SEC filing, the big swing was "Noncontrolling interests" What is this? Vodafone had a 45% stake in Verizon Wireless. Vodaphone was in the process of selling it's 45% stake to Verizon Communication. Verizon paid billions of dollars to Vodafone for the purchase of the stock.

That purchase lowered their profits for the year. Which reduced their taxes.

The entire deal was concluded in September of 2013.

BBC News - Vodafone sells Verizon stake for 130bn

Interestingly, Vodafone paid $5 Billion in taxes. So while Verizon's tax bill went down on the loss of money because of the purchase.... Vodafone's tax bill went UP from the sale of stock.

So the fact is.... the money was still taxed. Period. You people ARE WRONG. Period. You don't know what you are talking about. Some left leaning idiots come out with a report, and no one fact checks it.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Well you have the right to be wrong. You are still wrong, and making endless claims, with zero support might work for a certain group on this forum, but not for me.

You have to actually back up those claims with facts, and the facts are not on your side. I can easily look up the cost of the "infrastructure" you cite, and look up how much in taxes these companies are paying, and they are most certainly paying far far more in taxes, than the cost of the infrastructure, and I do this using basic math.

It is intellectual suicide to claim that the top 25% who pay 85% of all the taxes, have an unfair advantage over the bottom 50% of the country that barely pays 3% of the taxes.

If that really is your position, then you have disqualified yourself from the debate.

 

[ralfy]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

 

[danielpalos]

We need an "oil pump" to lubricate our political-economy. The concept of employment at will should be put to good social Use by solving simple poverty with it.

 

[Andylusion]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Does it require a profit? No. You need a profit in order to survive. True. But Capitalism, in and of itself, does not require profits, nor concentration of wealth, nor redistribution of wealth.

All that is required to have capitalism, is for you to own your own stuff. That's it.

Before this country even had a currency of exchange, we had capitalism. People owned their own labor, and a plot of ground. They owned the trade of wheat and eggs, for other things.

If you wanted to get some eggs, you had to kill wild game, or find other things, to trade the farmer for his products.

And there was no wealth redistribution, unless you count attacking the farmer and stealing his stuff.

As far as wealth concentration, that has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with freedom. I could cash out all my stocks, sell off all my stuff, and go blow it all on women, parties and gambling, and consume all of it. I would be broke. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it's a freedom of choices.

Equally, if you save and invest your entire life, you'll end up a millionaire really easy. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it is a freedom of choice to save and invest.

And while its a nice thought that business needs consumers, that's not entirely true. Business can thrive under any system, with or without consumers. Exxon would be just fine without us. They can sell oil international, and they can sell to governments. There were Chinese companies operating for decades before the capitalist reforms of 1978. 63% of the entire population of China lived below the poverty line of $2 a day. Those companies still grew, and still succeeded even while the population lived in object poverty.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

it is OK where all the participants agree to it.
Where systems go wrong is where people don't have a choice,
and/or there is an imbalance of power where the right to consent/dissent/due process is oppressed.

Basically as long as members of a group agree to the same rules, including how to
redress grievances and defend equal protections, then they can use any system they all agree to use.

but if you don't apply the same checks and balances on "large collective groups"
as the Constitution/Bill of Rights was used to check govt, then you will open the door for abuses of individuals
with less power to defend themselves. regardless what that group is.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Does it require a profit? No. You need a profit in order to survive. True. But Capitalism, in and of itself, does not require profits, nor concentration of wealth, nor redistribution of wealth.

All that is required to have capitalism, is for you to own your own stuff. That's it.

Before this country even had a currency of exchange, we had capitalism. People owned their own labor, and a plot of ground. They owned the trade of wheat and eggs, for other things.

If you wanted to get some eggs, you had to kill wild game, or find other things, to trade the farmer for his products.

And there was no wealth redistribution, unless you count attacking the farmer and stealing his stuff.

As far as wealth concentration, that has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with freedom. I could cash out all my stocks, sell off all my stuff, and go blow it all on women, parties and gambling, and consume all of it. I would be broke. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it's a freedom of choices.

Equally, if you save and invest your entire life, you'll end up a millionaire really easy. That's not a consequence of capitalism, as much as it is a freedom of choice to save and invest.

And while its a nice thought that business needs consumers, that's not entirely true. Business can thrive under any system, with or without consumers. Exxon would be just fine without us. They can sell oil international, and they can sell to governments. There were Chinese companies operating for decades before the capitalist reforms of 1978. 63% of the entire population of China lived below the poverty line of $2 a day. Those companies still grew, and still succeeded even while the population lived in object poverty.

Also, some people distinguish Free Enterprise from Capitalism.
Fair Trade and Cooperative Economics work on Free Enterprise but may not be considered Capitalism to some.

 

[there4eyeM]

Capitalism, in the simplest, most elementary definition, is the use of money to make money. It is based upon a money economy. Before capital took on the position it did in the Renaissance, the system was an exchange economy, where goods and services were traded in various ways. People had possessions. Money, as such, was relatively scarce and, in fact, of little use.

When Europe began to produce a surplus population, fairs and business expanded, especially internationally. Bankers in Italy essentially invented 'capitalism' by creating credit and letters that traders could carry instead of specie. This was very liberating to the entire society as it stimulated investment in all areas and life improved generally.

As with all systems that involve men, abuses soon arose and controls became evidently necessary. Therefore, capitalism without constraints (unbridled) does not exist. Capitalism is not evil nor is it good. It just is, an option like any other.

People did aid one another in exchange economies. American settlers collectively helped neighbors build and rebuild, provided aid to the sick and homeless, etc. That is redistribution of wealth. It is natural for the very fortunate to feel generosity toward their brothers and sisters. It is an article of necessity to anyone claiming to be a Christian, Moslem or Jew. Redistribution is only human. It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

 

[Geaux4it]

'Redistribution', particularly as originally proposed in this thread, is not necessarily something reserved to government to do. Charities redistribute wealth, for example. The 'rich' could intelligently defuse the catastrophic consequences of excess by diffusing a portion of that excess.

And the wealthy can continue to move overseas with all their riches. This is not much different than retiree's wanting to retire in locations with no state tax.

-Geaux

 

[danielpalos]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[danielpalos]

It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Can it ever be immoral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

 

[Moonglow]

It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Can it ever be immoral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

First you would need a parameter of Heaven...

 

[RKMBrown]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Stop it, your making me laugh so hard I think I'm gonna throw up.

 

[danielpalos]

It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Can it ever be immoral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

First you would need a parameter of Heaven...

What if we simply confide in the sincerity of Jesus the Christ, in Idaho?

 

[Moonglow]

It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Can it ever be immoral to Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

First you would need a parameter of Heaven...

What if we simply confide in the sincerity of Jesus the Christ, in Idaho?

Look at the short order grill for another Cheeseus...

 

[danielpalos]

It is about "income re-distribution" simply for the sake of the subjective value of morals.

 

[dblack]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

 

[RKMBrown]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

A portion of the distribution is voluntary the rest is coerced.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism, in the simplest, most elementary definition, is the use of money to make money. It is based upon a money economy. Before capital took on the position it did in the Renaissance, the system was an exchange economy, where goods and services were traded in various ways. People had possessions. Money, as such, was relatively scarce and, in fact, of little use.

When Europe began to produce a surplus population, fairs and business expanded, especially internationally. Bankers in Italy essentially invented 'capitalism' by creating credit and letters that traders could carry instead of specie. This was very liberating to the entire society as it stimulated investment in all areas and life improved generally.

As with all systems that involve men, abuses soon arose and controls became evidently necessary. Therefore, capitalism without constraints (unbridled) does not exist. Capitalism is not evil nor is it good. It just is, an option like any other.

People did aid one another in exchange economies. American settlers collectively helped neighbors build and rebuild, provided aid to the sick and homeless, etc. That is redistribution of wealth. It is natural for the very fortunate to feel generosity toward their brothers and sisters. It is an article of necessity to anyone claiming to be a Christian, Moslem or Jew. Redistribution is only human. It also makes sense for the extremely rich in order to avoid having it inflicted upon them by those who are oppressed through the excess of a few.

Well you say that... but I have never yet found a definition of Capitalism that said "use of money to make money".

Can you cite for me, a standardized definition of capitalism, from any reputable source, which says "use of money to make money"?

I doubt you can, and the reason is because that definition would render the word meaningless. The soviets used money to make more money, when they invested in gas exploration, so they could export the gas. Cuba used money to make more money, when they invested in sugar cain, to export it.

By your definition, all these communist countries, were all engaged in Capitalism. I don't think so.

I also like how you claimed again "unbridled capitalism" caused all these abuses, and then said it doesn't exist, thus avoiding needing to provide actual evidence to back that claim. Nice.

 

[Andylusion]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

And yet there are hundreds of thousands of corporations, and only a small tiny fraction of them have ever been bailed out.

I disagree with your claim.