Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh?

Less than 4% of last years spending helps what?

The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?

Raising taxes will create jobs? How?

Cuts the deficit by 25%

Gov't gets to fix infrastructure, perhaps stronger safety nets. Now run along bozo. You are boring me

Why are you double counting?

Is it for the same reason you confuse income and wealth?

Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up. Give me a hundred grand and I'll turn it into a lot more real easily. Isn't hard to invest and earn enough money to live off the principle. But getting the hudnred grand from a few hundred is difficult to say the least.

Should we take from the rich and give to the poor? No. That's not fair. But then capitalism isn't about being fair. So long as we stick to the capitalist model, the majority will get screwed over, and the priviledged rich will get richer. That's how it works. It persists so assuredly because every poor person dreams about becomming a rich person so but for a few times in history when the poor overthrew the rich, no one does anything about it. And even when they have put the rich's heads on pikes as in the French Revolution, the poor who overthrew the rich simply pursued wealth themselves becomming what they overthrew.

Same thing facing wealth inquality now. As long as the system itself perpetuates rich getting richer, poor staying poor, nothing will change. Nothing can change because it isn't individuals or even corporations at fault, but the capitalist system itself.

 

[Dad2three]

Economics 1

Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)

Definition of Demand Side fiscal policy:

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Supply side and demand side economics are philosophies designed to stimulate the economy by using divergent theories. In theory, supply side economics will cause an influx of investments by the wealthy, prompting new growth. Demand side economics, on the other hand, focuses on stimulating the average consumer to spend more money.

Read more : Supply Side Vs. Demand Side Economics | eHow

Got it, you will NOT acknowledged JFK wanted to increase the actual EFFECTIVE rates on the 'job creators' by getting rid of loopholes AND his proposal to hit those with $180,000+ incomes!

 

[dnsmith35]

Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

 

[Dad2three]

I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


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

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

On those where rates don;'t matter? Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?


DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom, so yes, the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Weird how the ONLY tax increase the GOP was for, was one hitting the bottom 90% the hardest!

 

[dblack]

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?

Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up. Give me a hundred grand and I'll turn it into a lot more real easily. Isn't hard to invest and earn enough money to live off the principle. But getting the hudnred grand from a few hundred is difficult to say the least.

Should we take from the rich and give to the poor? No. That's not fair. But then capitalism isn't about being fair. So long as we stick to the capitalist model, the majority will get screwed over, and the priviledged rich will get richer. That's how it works. It persists so assuredly because every poor person dreams about becomming a rich person so but for a few times in history when the poor overthrew the rich, no one does anything about it. And even when they have put the rich's heads on pikes as in the French Revolution, the poor who overthrew the rich simply pursued wealth themselves becomming what they overthrew.

Same thing facing wealth inquality now. As long as the system itself perpetuates rich getting richer, poor staying poor, nothing will change. Nothing can change because it isn't individuals or even corporations at fault, but the capitalist system itself.

So what are you advocating then?

 

[dnsmith35]

Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up.

That is easily disproved. The 500 wealthiest people in the US has changed by 98% over a decade. Wealth can be inherited, but most of the current wealthy people DID gain that status on their own rather than through gifts or inheritance.

 

[Dad2three]

Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "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." Do you believe that?

Yes, history shows it's true!

RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS REMEMBER?

 

[bripat9643]

So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


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

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

On those where rates don;'t matter? Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years?


DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom, so yes, the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs!

Weird how the ONLY tax increase the GOP was for, was one hitting the bottom 90% the hardest!

You couldn't be honest and admit that increasing taxes kills jobs.

What are the taxes where rates don't matter? I can't imaging such a thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "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." Do you believe that?

Yes, history shows it's true!

RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS REMEMBER?

History shows no such thing. Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cuts the deficit by 25%

Gov't gets to fix infrastructure, perhaps stronger safety nets. Now run along bozo. You are boring me

Why are you double counting?

Is it for the same reason you confuse income and wealth?

Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org

the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure.

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things?
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

Weird how 90%+ of current debt

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?

 

[dnsmith35]

Economics 1

Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)

Definition of Demand Side fiscal policy:

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Supply side and demand side economics are philosophies designed to stimulate the economy by using divergent theories. In theory, supply side economics will cause an influx of investments by the wealthy, prompting new growth. Demand side economics, on the other hand, focuses on stimulating the average consumer to spend more money.

Read more : Supply Side Vs. Demand Side Economics | eHow

Got it, you will NOT acknowledged JFK wanted to increase the actual EFFECTIVE rates on the 'job creators' by getting rid of loopholes AND his proposal to hit those with $180,000+ incomes!

Why wouldn't I acknowledge that? I liked JFK, and I understood why he CHOSE to call for SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS. As shown in the definitions I posted and linked to, his tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE. Of course he did other things as well. I voted for him and would have voted for him again. After all, I am a liberal, just not a LEFT WING EXTREMISTS like some others on this thread

 

[Dad2three]

Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.

Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?

BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL

How about the subprime auto Biz and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol

FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

 

[bripat9643]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

Under socialism, everyone starves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economics 1

Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)

Definition of Demand Side fiscal policy:

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Supply side and demand side economics are philosophies designed to stimulate the economy by using divergent theories. In theory, supply side economics will cause an influx of investments by the wealthy, prompting new growth. Demand side economics, on the other hand, focuses on stimulating the average consumer to spend more money.

Read more : Supply Side Vs. Demand Side Economics | eHow

Got it, you will NOT acknowledged JFK wanted to increase the actual EFFECTIVE rates on the 'job creators' by getting rid of loopholes AND his proposal to hit those with $180,000+ incomes!

Where did JFK say he wanted to get rid of loopholes and increase effective rates?

You must have a quote handy. You wouldn't make up something like that. Right?

 

[Dad2three]

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.

It's the game monopoly spread out over the US, a few winners and MANY, MANY losers!

 

[Dad2three]

Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up.

That is easily disproved. The 500 wealthiest people in the US has changed by 98% over a decade. Wealth can be inherited, but most of the current wealthy people DID gain that status on their own rather than through gifts or inheritance.

Nonsense. LINKS?


Most were BORN ON 3RD BASE LIKE ROMNEY!!

 

[Dad2three]

Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "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." Do you believe that?

Yes, history shows it's true!

RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS REMEMBER?

History shows no such thing. Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.

Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?

 

[Dad2three]

Why are you double counting?

Is it for the same reason you confuse income and wealth?

Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org

the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure.

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things?
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

Weird how 90%+ of current debt

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?

False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird