Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!

Do we have more wealth now than in the past or not?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? lol


How'd that work out for Dubya?

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

It's not a secrete. It's not a mystery. The facts from the 60's, the 80's and the 90's, especially, are well known. Indeed, the dynamics are intuitively self-evident. I wouldn't waste my time showing jack to some jackass who denies the facts of economic realty, which he may readily confirm for himself, but for the fact that they don't jive with his mindless, willfully ignorant, zero-sum-gain ideology of tax and oppress.

Carry on. . . .

lol, Right because IF a 'job creator' has more money from paying less taxes, they'll higher someone? NO demand doesn't drive it, lol

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.

No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Here's the thing. I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. I know the difference between income and wealth. You don't. You think that the varying, naturally occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil? That's nuts. You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity. That's nuts. Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.

Carry on. . . .

 

[Dad2three]

RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!

Do we have more wealth now than in the past or not?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

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?

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned? I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it? That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it. "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur. Is that your way of claiming your entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

 

[Dad2three]

It's not a secrete. It's not a mystery. The facts from the 60's, the 80's and the 90's, especially, are well known. Indeed, the dynamics are intuitively self-evident. I wouldn't waste my time showing jack to some jackass who denies the facts of economic realty, which he may readily confirm for himself, but for the fact that they don't jive with his mindless, willfully ignorant, zero-sum-gain ideology of tax and oppress.

Carry on. . . .

lol, Right because IF a 'job creator' has more money from paying less taxes, they'll higher someone? NO demand doesn't drive it, lol

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.

No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Here's the thing. I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. I know the difference between income and wealth. You don't. You think that the varying, naturally occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil? That's nuts. You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity. That's nuts. Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.

Carry on. . . .

Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[Dad2three]

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.

Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?

Guess you are passing right by this post I destroyed your talking points on?

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One Dubya was head cheerleader for in the US and fought all 50 states who wanted to slow it down and ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004, actually gutting them by 1,800 agents in white collar instead!

 

[MikeK]

Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down. Right?

Absolutely right!

The problem is the ready availability of fake ID. Anything from state driver licenses, birth and baptism certificates, to military separation papers can be bought in Tijuana or from dealers who the employers of illegals direct them to. The quality ranges from poor to excellent but quality doesn't matter as long as the illegal has the documents when he's working in case the INS pulls a raid.

This is the reason Congress has resisted passing a law requiring a biometric ID card which is registered and addressable (like credit cards) via swipe terminals carried by INS agents. These addressable cards would be verifiable by fingerprint and/or iris reading. It would take six months to complete a program requiring all citizens to have a card. The cost could be offset by charging those above a given income level $10.

Such a program, backed by a significant penalty for violations, would put an end to the hiring of illegals, the vast majority of whom would be forced to voluntarily go back to Mexico and Central America. But our corrupted, corporatist Congress won't pass such a law. In fact some of them discourage it by saying such a requirement is "un-American."

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.

The ceo is a ******* pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.

 

[HenryBHough]

I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.

The ceo is a ******* pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.

So you'd like to see government wage controls. How about price controls, too? That will help us establish whether you are a true Nixon Republican!

 

[bripat9643]

Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down. Right?

Absolutely right!

The problem is the ready availability of fake ID. Anything from state driver licenses, birth and baptism certificates, to military separation papers can be bought in Tijuana or from dealers who the employers of illegals direct them to. The quality ranges from poor to excellent but quality doesn't matter as long as the illegal has the documents when he's working in case the INS pulls a raid.

This is the reason Congress has resisted passing a law requiring a biometric ID card which is registered and addressable (like credit cards) via swipe terminals carried by INS agents. These addressable cards would be verifiable by fingerprint and/or iris reading. It would take six months to complete a program requiring all citizens to have a card. The cost could be offset by charging those above a given income level $10.

Such a program, backed by a significant penalty for violations, would put an end to the hiring of illegals, the vast majority of whom would be forced to voluntarily go back to Mexico and Central America. But our corrupted, corporatist Congress won't pass such a law. In fact some of them discourage it by saying such a requirement is "un-American."

The government doesn't even enforce the laws on the books now when it knows illegals are working in this country.

Who do you think you're kidding?

All we need is a president willing to enforce the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!

Do we have more wealth now than in the past or not?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

So, if you take a quantity, divide it into parts, the sum of the parts equals the whole. That's all you've said. Your term "zero sum" should be just "sum." It doesn't mean anything. We already know that wages plus other other costs plus profits equals revenues. That's just basic accounting.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]

"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?" The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does.

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits.

see?

How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned? I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it? That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it. "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur. Is that your way of claiming your entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.

No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

Rape and murder are also part of the "real world." The question is, how is it justified. You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income. Utter horseshit. Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do

It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.

You move out of the country, asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

lol, Right because IF a 'job creator' has more money from paying less taxes, they'll higher someone? NO demand doesn't drive it, lol

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.

No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Here's the thing. I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. I know the difference between income and wealth. You don't. You think that the varying, naturally occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil? That's nuts. You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity. That's nuts. Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.

Carry on. . . .

Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

We're all happy that you're able to do sums.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Why don't you do an honest side by side comparison. you start Obama off in his first year but you don't jump in on Ronnie Raygun until his second.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.

The ceo is a ******* pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.

you want violence, you want to open the door so govt can set all wages and prices. It ends in communism.

Also if you take Apple Ceo Tim Cook and divide his salary among Apple workers it comes to $84 a year!

 

[rdean]

jfk 1964!

And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.

That is such a bogus argument.

We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s. The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions. We didn't have the AMT. And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S. We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.

It's not a bogus argument. Those taxes paid for an interstate highway system. For dams which provide power. They paid to start NASA whose inventions and developed technology has infused billions into our economy and gave us the technological foundation to be the world leaders in technology. Someone may have built the first personal computer in their garage, but without the chips and technology developed by NASA, that never would have happened.

And what are today's GOP alternatives? Cut taxes? Redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1% because they are the "job CREATORS"? Let everything fall apart. Bigger military? Slash education?

What?

Tell us, what?

Give us some examples of "think big".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.

That is such a bogus argument.

We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s. The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions. We didn't have the AMT. And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S. We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.

It's not a bogus argument. Those taxes paid for an interstate highway system. For dams which provide power. They paid to start NASA whose inventions and developed technology has infused billions into our economy and gave us the technological foundation to be the world leaders in technology. Someone may have built the first personal computer in their garage, but without the chips and technology developed by NASA, that never would have happened.

And what are today's GOP alternatives? Cut taxes? Redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1% because they are the "job CREATORS"? Let everything fall apart. Bigger military? Slash education?

What?

Tell us, what?

Give us some examples of "think big".

think big?? conservatives want freedom from liberal govt. That is what made America great not big govt projects. Do you understand that? Freedom produced millions of inventions few of which had anything to do with govt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.

The ceo is a ******* pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.

You need to start your own company and do that.

Fight the man!!!! Idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

Why don't you do an honest side by side comparison. you start Obama off in his first year but you don't jump in on Ronnie Raygun until his second.

See the words "Post Recession Growth"? LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Do we have more wealth now than in the past or not?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

So, if you take a quantity, divide it into parts, the sum of the parts equals the whole. That's all you've said. Your term "zero sum" should be just "sum." It doesn't mean anything. We already know that wages plus other other costs plus profits equals revenues. That's just basic accounting.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when tax rates were high and the corporations save their tax money by reinvesting into their company instead of just pulling everything out.

The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.