Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[TheBrain]

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.

the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the **** are you babbling about?

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine



Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?

 

[rdean]

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.

the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the **** are you babbling about?

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine



Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?

And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation. It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high. Are these the "earners"? They are legally ******* the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal. Seems to be working. The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".

 

[TheBrain]

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.

the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the **** are you babbling about?

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine



Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?

And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation. It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high. Are these the "earners"? They are legally ******* the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal. Seems to be working. The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".

That is completely irrelevant to this discussion Dean. Do you deny the facts as presented? Why can't you answer the questions. Why are you okay with 40% of Americans not paying ANY income tax? Why do you think that the top 1% of earners in this country paying twice the percentage of taxes as they earn in income is not enough? Stop deflecting and answer the questions.

 

[bripat9643]

And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation. It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high. Are these the "earners"? They are legally ******* the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal. Seems to be working. The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".

buying stock doesn't increase the price of anything. In fact, it probably reduces prices by providing capital to companies so they can expand production. It's also doesn't meet the definition of "speculation."

All you've proven is that your ideas are based on total ignorance of economics.

 

[snjmom]

buying stock doesn't increase the price of anything. In fact, it probably reduces prices by providing capital to companies so they can expand production. It's also doesn't meet the definition of "speculation."

All you've proven is that your ideas are based on total ignorance of economics.

Manipulating markets through stock purchases intending to reap profits from the wholesale destruction of markets doesn't expand production.

The decreased demand because the people that spend 100% of their income surviving are paying the tax burden formerly paid by the people that have enough money individually to distort markets through their decisions causes a spiral of contraction.

Too much money controlled by two few individuals creates market El Ninos. Concentrated wealth is always bad for a market. Like Dolly said, you have to spread it for it to do any good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.

the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the **** are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?

And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation.
It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high

Food and fuel are sold on the commodities markets, not the stock market.

When you can't get the basic facts straight, why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.

the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the **** are you babbling about?
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American Magazine
Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?

You're talking to someone who believes the tax code is a means through which to exact social justice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money. Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.

No, you aren't giving them money. That's like saying if a thief steals $1000 from all your neighbors but only steals $500 from you, then he has given you $500.

Not taking your money is not giving you money.

if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?

So they can keep more of they money they make.

There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.

 

[Care4all]

No, you aren't giving them money. That's like saying if a thief steals $1000 from all your neighbors but only steals $500 from you, then he has given you $500.

Not taking your money is not giving you money.

if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?

So they can keep more of they money they make.

There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.

is it okay to not take tax money from all those people that the rightwing ***** and moan about....the 40% of americans that pay no income tax?

Why do your compadres on the right *****, whine and cry about the people in the usa, that are allowed to keep their own money and not pay income tax? they act as if these people not paying income taxes are "stealing from them:" because they do not pay income tax?

Seems to me, if you are one of those who supports the idea that those people not paying any income tax due to tax breaks for their income level, are getting away with murder and cheating somehow....then You would Think, that they would support the position of not giving a business a special tax break either....

I don't get any of this 2 faced-ness?

I am not saying this is your position M-14, just saying it has been the vocal position of quite a few on this board from the rightwing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?

So they can keep more of they money they make.

There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.

Is it okay to not take tax money from all those people that the rightwing ***** and moan about....the 40% of americans that pay no income tax?

If anyone pays taxes, then everyone should pay taxes.
What's that have to do with what I said?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/165504-limit-what-foodstamps-are-able-to-buy.html

 

[Londoner]

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would force them to lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.

(You people can't be this naive. The OP is repeating stuff he has never studied in a rigorous university context)

(wow, just wow)

 

[Wiseacre]

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.

(You people can't this naive. The OP is repeating talk radio garbage)

(wow, just wow)

Actually there might be some truth in what you say, but you've got the major issue wrong. Wealth is not redistributed upward, it is created at all levels but primarily at the top cuz the rich guys have the most to invest. The wads of money a rich guy makes does not come at the expense of a bunch of poor people, when Bill gates makes a billion dollars a year or whatever, it's not like a hundred million or so other people lost that money, it's not zero sum.

 

[georgephillip]

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would force them to lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.

(You people can't be this naive. The OP is repeating stuff he has never studied in a rigorous university context)

(wow, just wow)

Dean Baker could not have said it any better.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[georgephillip]

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians.

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition.

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda.

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward.

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government.

(You people can't this naive. The OP is repeating talk radio garbage)

(wow, just wow)

Actually there might be some truth in what you say, but you've got the major issue wrong. Wealth is not redistributed upward, it is created at all levels but primarily at the top cuz the rich guys have the most to invest. The wads of money a rich guy makes does not come at the expense of a bunch of poor people, when Bill gates makes a billion dollars a year or whatever, it's not like a hundred million or so other people lost that money, it's not zero sum.

Do you believe money is a commodity?

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

 

[editec]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

 

[georgephillip]

Socialize cost.
Privatize profit.
What ALL governments have done for thousands of years.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.

 

[manifold]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.

And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?

 

[CountofTuscany]

Kiddies....all GOVERNMENT is, one way or the other, wealth redistribution.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.

The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.

And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?

My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system. I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did. But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.