Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

of course thats absurd. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are Republicans and both running for president. That's a long long way from being a totally impotent Libertarians.

LOL, Sure

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortnes in an foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!

So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...

dear, what is your point?
except that you always want more and more lib commie violence. Today the Nazi steal your estate at gun point? What's tomorrow? Where does your violence end?

 

[Dad2three]

08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


1981 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
14.0% $3,400 $5,500
16.0% $5,500 $7,600
18.0% $7,600 $11,900
21.0% $11,900 $16,000
24.0% $16,000 $20,200
28.0% $20,200 $24,600
32.0% $24,600 $29,900
37.0% $29,900 $35,200
43.0% $35,200 $45,800
49.0% $45,800 $60,000
54.0% $60,000 $85,600
59.0% $85,600 $109,400
64.0% $109,400 $162,400
68.0% $162,400 $215,400
70.0% $215,400 -


1982 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
12.0% $3,400 $5,500
14.0% $5,500 $7,600
16.0% $7,600 $11,900
19.0% $11,900 $16,000
22.0% $16,000 $20,200
25.0% $20,200 $24,600
29.0% $24,600 $29,900
33.0% $29,900 $35,200
39.0% $35,200 $45,800
44.0% $45,800 $60,000
49.0% $60,000 $85,600
50.0% $85,600 -

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.

The listed brackets before and after show that taxes were cut.

Ah, to much of an ideologue to understand effective tax rates versus marginal rates. I'm shocked

Reagan 'tax cuts':

" It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined"

 

[dnsmith35]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

It's based on SOCIETY. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Benjamin Franklin

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

 

[Dad2three]

how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortnes in an foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!

So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...

dear, what is your point?
except that you always want more and more lib commie violence. Today the Nazi steal your estate at gun point? What's tomorrow? Where does your violence end?

Poor, ignorant deluded senior citizen living off of Gov't teet standing up for millionaires and billionaire best interests. Shocking...

 

[Dad2three]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, it still boils down to one simple concept which is: What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?

It's based on SOCIETY. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Benjamin Franklin

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."


...Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[Ernie S.]

Men are made stronger on realization that the helping hand they need is at the end of their own arm. ~Sidney J. Phillips

 

[bripat9643]

AGAIN, Your OPINION....

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

The fact that a someone's views may be popular doesn't make them true.

You just committed another fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately, the GOP has been just as complicit in letting them happen.

A real disappointment.

And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

Granted, the democrats are full blown AIDS.

But that doesn't make the GOP pleasant, by any means.

"And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge."

Weird, you mean a program that costs as much this decade that's 100% funded, Obamacares? And the GOP plan wasn't funded EVER? ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PROGRAM (BK) RIGHT?

Only a special kind of sucker believes Obamacare is 100% funded. The GAO has already stated the fact that it isn't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth.

which we now know is true given that we got from the stone age to here because Republicans invented things like airplanes. The demand to fly was there since man looked at his first bird, but nothing came of it until Republican supply side capitalists invented a plane people could afford to fly in.

Now you can see why demand side liberalism should be made illegal in the USA!!

 

[bripat9643]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
Wealth Redistribution = Theft
There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
Yes, it is just that simple.

Yes, simple minds generally come up with simple answers...

Truth is often quite simple. Liars and schemers like to pretend it's complicated.

 

[bripat9643]

It's based on SOCIETY. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Benjamin Franklin

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."


...Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

so when Kennedy cut marginal rates, it was a "demand side" cut, but when Reagan cut marginal rates, it was a "supply side" cut?

Hilarious!

You can't make this stuff up!

 

[Dad2three]

It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

The fact that a someone's views may be popular doesn't make them true.

You just committed another fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

And you refuse to see YOUR society for what it is, Somalia....

 

[Dad2three]

And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

Granted, the democrats are full blown AIDS.

But that doesn't make the GOP pleasant, by any means.

"And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge."

Weird, you mean a program that costs as much this decade that's 100% funded, Obamacares? And the GOP plan wasn't funded EVER? ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PROGRAM (BK) RIGHT?

Only a special kind of sucker believes Obamacare is 100% funded. The GAO has already stated the fact that it isn't.

No they haven't. That's a right wing lie, I'm shocked. BUT what percentage of Dubya/GOP Medicare part D was funded? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.

lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."


...Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

so when Kennedy cut marginal rates, it was a "demand side" cut, but when Reagan cut marginal rates, it was a "supply side" cut?

Hilarious!

You can't make this stuff up!

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Dad2three]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
Wealth Redistribution = Theft
There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
Yes, it is just that simple.

Yes, simple minds generally come up with simple answers...

Truth is often quite simple. Liars and schemers like to pretend it's complicated.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.

Every president has to pay the obligations incurred by previous presidents. Since you imbeciles don't let Bush off the hook for such obligations, you have no justification for letting Obama off the hook. Furthermore, part of what Obama ran on was reducing the deficit.

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues, 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eye could see...


HONESTY, TRY IT!!!


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues

Obama has record US revenues now.
Where is his balanced, or surplus, budget?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

You and all your lemmings thanking you would have to write Obama about that one... Why didn't he and the Dem Senate and Congress do something about it when they had a super majority for 2 years, or even under Bush when they held the house and Senate for 2 years (Obama included).

Oh, because you only care when a Republican is President.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


AS DUBYA'S ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ AND LOSING 700,000+ JOBS A MONTH

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period.

How long was Bush's filibuster-proof majority?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes!

how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortnes in an foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!

So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...

A benefit (supposedly) for society

A benefit from money kept from government? Weird...