Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.

yes the libs collect or steal 15% of everyone's life time income which in the average case would amount to $1.4 million at retirement. Sure beats the dog food money they give you if
you live long enough to collect a penny of it.

 

[Contumacious]

us taxpayers funds used to subsidized the palestnian genocide is not considered redistribution of wealth.

Monies used to support and defend zionism is exempted from such criticism.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything. As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow? That is so funny! What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns? A year, year and a half at the most.

Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments

History makes the message clear
Investors who sit on the sidelines after a downturn missed the higher-than-average returns that followed market corrections. While it may be tempting to stay in cash until you're sure the markets have calmed, history shows us that you may have a better chance of recouping your losses—and doing so at a faster rate—if you re-enter the markets sooner rather than later.

Looking at historical index returns, we can study how the market behaved coming out of prior market downturns. Between 1926 and 2008 there were seven periods of recession where markets were down more than 25% and the down period lasted longer than 12 months. On average the annualized market returns were notably higher in the 10 years after each market rebound compared to long-term results from 1926-2008.

Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.

I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.

What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?

Well, after the Great Depression, it took until 1954 for the Dow to reach its previous level.
It was much quicker, if you reinvested dividends.
After peaking in 1966, it took the market until 1982 to reach its previous level.

I wouldn't trust the guy who said it has to come back quicker.
That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now.

 

[dnsmith35]

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...

You are so full of crap we can smell you over the internet.

 

[dblack]

us taxpayers funds used to subsidized the palestnian genocide is not considered redistribution of wealth.

Monies used to support and defend zionism is exempted from such criticism.

.

Exempt from whom? Ron and Rand Paul level their share. Too bad Democrats are so weak-kneed when it comes to pushing back against the military-industrial complex. We could use their help.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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...

You are so full of crap we can smell you over the internet.

sad but true. all the liberal programs are based in violence. People can't spend their own money wisely, the liberals have to steal it at gunpoint because only they know how to spend it wisely!

 

[dnsmith35]

And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.

RECORD profits?

You should be very happy there are record profits. As demand has picked up more people go to work. If not for the profits there would be no new jobs.

 

[dnsmith35]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the connection between deficits and the debt. Yes, there is a difference, but they are closely related. . I. below is correct.Most certainly, I do know better.[/B]

From 1970 to 1997, the federal government ran a deficit every single year. Starting in 1998, the federal government began running surpluses. In the 1980s the size of deficits exploded, greatly increasing the national debt:

Chapter 12: Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt



I LOVE MAKING CONS LOOK FOOLISH, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT TO DIFFICULT...

You have made yourself look foolish by quoting a web site which is lying through their teeth. Now, if you want to see the facts let us go to the US Treasury which partially confirms some of what you said, but clearly proves that some of it is not true. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)All of your quote which I bolded is correct.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​

Thus at the end of the fiscal year, the debt goes up because of accumulated deficits, and the fact that off budget surplus MUST BE GIVEN TO THE TREASURY IN RETURN FOR DEBT TO THE TRUST FUNDS.

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus. The extremist yahoos like to look at the Calendar year in which there was a surplus but overlook the fact that before the end of the fiscal year there was a deficit.

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues

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

It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.

We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.

Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?

Or am I a racist for asking?

Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Not even near Ronnie's revenues 18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...

No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..

 

[Dad2three]

Hilarious that you're agreeing with that goof.
Maybe if you proved his claim, I'd mock you less?

So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong? lol


But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.


https://mises.org/daily/1544

So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong?

Yeah, he's a nutbag, like Krugman.

of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts

Majority? That sounds like more than the top 1%. Thanks!!!

would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains.

Lowered savings and investment are bad. I agree, we need to cut business taxes and capital gains taxes, right now!!!! Thanks again.

ONCE MORE

" Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible"

 

[mudwhistle]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

I think it's more fair for college students with good grades to give their A's to the students that partied instead of studying.

 

[Dad2three]

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?

What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?

ONCE MORE

"What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?"

March 4, 2005

The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions

Bush's plan for Social Security - Mar. 4, 2005

NOW GIVE ME THE BILLS THAT WERE BLOCKED IN THE GOP CONGRESS? Oops

 

[Dad2three]

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

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.

NOPE. Try again

https://mises.org/daily/1544



And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!

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. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because of bracket creep? That's hilarious.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would bracket creep have been prevented? No.

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because Social Security is a crappy system and payroll taxes had to increase? Even funnier.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would Social Security have been less crappy? No.
Would payroll tax hikes have somehow been avoided? No.

Keep referencing that nutbag, he's very helpful to your claims. LOL!

Good you agree, taxes were cut on the 'job creators' not much with everyone else

 

[Dad2three]

Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

The market is bullshit, it's Vegas East. Don't remember the market pre Reagan spiking it huh?

 

[Dad2three]

Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything. As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow? That is so funny! What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns? A year, year and a half at the most.

Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments

History makes the message clear
Investors who sit on the sidelines after a downturn missed the higher-than-average returns that followed market corrections. While it may be tempting to stay in cash until you're sure the markets have calmed, history shows us that you may have a better chance of recouping your losses—and doing so at a faster rate—if you re-enter the markets sooner rather than later.

Looking at historical index returns, we can study how the market behaved coming out of prior market downturns. Between 1926 and 2008 there were seven periods of recession where markets were down more than 25% and the down period lasted longer than 12 months. On average the annualized market returns were notably higher in the 10 years after each market rebound compared to long-term results from 1926-2008.

Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.

I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.

It's GREAT, until it POPS!

 

[Dad2three]

How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.

I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything. As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow? That is so funny! What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns? A year, year and a half at the most.

Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments

History makes the message clear
Investors who sit on the sidelines after a downturn missed the higher-than-average returns that followed market corrections. While it may be tempting to stay in cash until you're sure the markets have calmed, history shows us that you may have a better chance of recouping your losses—and doing so at a faster rate—if you re-enter the markets sooner rather than later.

Looking at historical index returns, we can study how the market behaved coming out of prior market downturns. Between 1926 and 2008 there were seven periods of recession where markets were down more than 25% and the down period lasted longer than 12 months. On average the annualized market returns were notably higher in the 10 years after each market rebound compared to long-term results from 1926-2008.

Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.

I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market. Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.

What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?

Well, after the Great Depression, it took until 1954 for the Dow to reach its previous level.
It was much quicker, if you reinvested dividends.
After peaking in 1966, it took the market until 1982 to reach its previous level.

I wouldn't trust the guy who said it has to come back quicker.
That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now.

" That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now. "



Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? Weird how conservatives forget WHY we created SS...

 

[Ropey]

Morality of Wealth Redistribution

You're forgetting the most important part of that equation.

There is no morality in the mandatory redistribution of my wealth.

 

[Dad2three]

And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.

RECORD profits?

You should be very happy there are record profits. As demand has picked up more people go to work. If not for the profits there would be no new jobs.

RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol

 

[Dad2three]

I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the connection between deficits and the debt. Yes, there is a difference, but they are closely related. . I. below is correct.Most certainly, I do know better.[/B]You have made yourself look foolish by quoting a web site which is lying through their teeth. Now, if you want to see the facts let us go to the US Treasury which partially confirms some of what you said, but clearly proves that some of it is not true. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)All of your quote which I bolded is correct.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​

Thus at the end of the fiscal year, the debt goes up because of accumulated deficits, and the fact that off budget surplus MUST BE GIVEN TO THE TREASURY IN RETURN FOR DEBT TO THE TRUST FUNDS.

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus. The extremist yahoos like to look at the Calendar year in which there was a surplus but overlook the fact that before the end of the fiscal year there was a deficit.

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

Got it, you'll stay confused

"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Look at 1998-2001 F/Y's


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Dad2three]

I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the connection between deficits and the debt. Yes, there is a difference, but they are closely related. . I. below is correct.Most certainly, I do know better.[/B]You have made yourself look foolish by quoting a web site which is lying through their teeth. Now, if you want to see the facts let us go to the US Treasury which partially confirms some of what you said, but clearly proves that some of it is not true. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)All of your quote which I bolded is correct.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​

Thus at the end of the fiscal year, the debt goes up because of accumulated deficits, and the fact that off budget surplus MUST BE GIVEN TO THE TREASURY IN RETURN FOR DEBT TO THE TRUST FUNDS.

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus. The extremist yahoos like to look at the Calendar year in which there was a surplus but overlook the fact that before the end of the fiscal year there was a deficit.

Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.


Zero to do with debt...

It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.

In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.

That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently tweeted this chart, which breaks down the major drivers that turned a small surplus into a massive deficit:

Tthis chart also hits the nail on the head when it comes to identifying the major deficit drivers:

An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.


How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider