Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[norwegen]

Blacks, baby mamas, and potheads are not capable of functioning on their own. They'd be dying in the streets if the government didn't pilfer.

So deal, wingers.

 

[Mr. H.]

The income/wealth that is produced is earned by somebody. That is, someone is taking an investment risk. Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it? This is essentially what you are saying. Someone advocating redistribution or rallying against income/wealth disparity is really asking for a handout - something for nothing.

The person originating this thread has no clue about economics.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Didn't you marry MrsZartok?

 

[Mr. H.]

Blacks, baby mamas, and potheads are not capable of functioning on their own. They'd be dying in the streets if the government didn't pilfer.

So deal, wingers.

Oh, go back to norweg why dontcha?

 

[whitehall]

Margaret Thatcher said it best, "sooner or later socialist governments run out of other people's money".

 

[boedicca]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

You are a simple sort, aintcha?

 

[norwegen]

Blacks, baby mamas, and potheads are not capable of functioning on their own. They'd be dying in the streets if the government didn't pilfer.

So deal, wingers.

Oh, go back to norweg why dontcha?

I almost forgot. The gubmit has to save Mr. H, too.

 

[ilia25]

A chart that says that, is the reason why GOVERNMENT must step in, in violation of the Constitution?

Your interpretation of the Constitution is flawed. And even if it wasn't, then it would mean the Constitutions had failed to serve the interests of the people and should have been amended.

The US Constitution is meant to provide a frame work to manage a union of STATES, the only provision in it that should effect the daily lives of individuals is to make sure you get your mail. Now show me where I got it wrong, quote the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

 

[OKTexas]

Your interpretation of the Constitution is flawed. And even if it wasn't, then it would mean the Constitutions had failed to serve the interests of the people and should have been amended.

The US Constitution is meant to provide a frame work to manage a union of STATES, the only provision in it that should effect the daily lives of individuals is to make sure you get your mail. Now show me where I got it wrong, quote the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

And the remainder of section 8 specifies what the legal expenditures of those funds are. Hint giving money to citizens isn't part of that unless they are providing a service for the US.

 

[ilia25]

Now I am never for forced redistribution, clever taxing schemes for redistribution or even reparations of any kind on such things like that, but I am for shaming companies who treat and abuse the American workers badly, and especially for the reasons of GREED in which they do it.

You cannot shame a company for paying millions to its CEO. This is a valid business decision -- the companies have to attract the best and brightest. As long as we have a free-market based economy, which we should, it will create inequality. Sometimes it would create way more than it is necessary for simply giving people right motivations.

When it happens, the government should intervene by redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.

 

[ilia25]

The US Constitution is meant to provide a frame work to manage a union of STATES, the only provision in it that should effect the daily lives of individuals is to make sure you get your mail. Now show me where I got it wrong, quote the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

And the remainder of section 8 specifies what the legal expenditures of those funds are.

No, it does not. It specifies other (aside form taxation) powers of the Congress. For example: the Congress does not tax people in order to 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.

 

[Shanty]

The income/wealth that is produced is earned by somebody. That is, someone is taking an investment risk. Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it? This is essentially what you are saying. Someone advocating redistribution or rallying against income/wealth disparity is really asking for a handout - something for nothing.

The person originating this thread has no clue about economics.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I think you meant to say the person originating the post I'm quoting has no understanding of economics.

 

[Shanty]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

You chart is bullshit because the ave size of the American family has been decreasing drastically for the last several decades.

If you show workers real wages over the past several decades, it still shows the same problem.

If anything, the size of the families being smaller would tend to make available more disposable income, if real wages were not falling.

 

[OKTexas]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

And the remainder of section 8 specifies what the legal expenditures of those funds are.

No, it does not. It specifies other (aside form taxation) powers of the Congress. For example: the Congress does not tax people in order to 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.

Taxes would be used to pay those debts, that would be a legal expenditure. Careful you're starting to reach the realm of the purely ignorant.

 

[Shanty]

Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it?

But they do. Nobody has earned their fortune in an empty space -- they did it while leaving in the society, using the rules that everyone is following. That is why it is only fair to set up the rules (including taxation) so that most people would benefit, not just the lucky few.

Hard work and risk taking should be rewarded -- but making hundreds times more than someone working full time is ridiculous. Nobody is working 4000 hours weeks.

The better answer is that if the US invested the taxes from the wealthy into infrastructure, people would earn the money who aren't wealthy. Never mind the overall benefits to the economy, like more people working, and more people spending their money to keep the wealthy in wealth, and allowing new wealth to be created.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

You chart is bullshit because the ave size of the American family has been decreasing drastically for the last several decades.

If you show workers real wages over the past several decades, it still shows the same problem.

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

If anything, the size of the families being smaller would tend to make available more disposable income, if real wages were not falling.

"Make it available" to whom? If you take the same total wages and divide it up among a greater number of families, then you get lower average family wages. The math is so simple that even a liberal could do it.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it?

But they do. Nobody has earned their fortune in an empty space -- they did it while leaving in the society, using the rules that everyone is following. That is why it is only fair to set up the rules (including taxation) so that most people would benefit, not just the lucky few.

Hard work and risk taking should be rewarded -- but making hundreds times more than someone working full time is ridiculous. Nobody is working 4000 hours weeks.

The better answer is that if the US invested the taxes from the wealthy into infrastructure, people would earn the money who aren't wealthy. Never mind the overall benefits to the economy, like more people working, and more people spending their money to keep the wealthy in wealth, and allowing new wealth to be created.

Government takes most of the money it taxes from the wealthy and flushes it down the welfare sewer. The rich invest their money. That creates jobs. Government hands it out to ticks on the ass of society. That creates dependency and destroys jobs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

Here's a supplement that will tell us exactly WHY:

 

[MrZartok]

Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it?

But they do. Nobody has earned their fortune in an empty space -- they did it while leaving in the society, using the rules that everyone is following. That is why it is only fair to set up the rules (including taxation) so that most people would benefit, not just the lucky few.



Hard work and risk taking should be rewarded -- but making hundreds times more than someone working full time is ridiculous. Nobody is working 4000 hours weeks.

The better answer is that if the US invested the taxes from the wealthy into infrastructure, people would earn the money who aren't wealthy. Never mind the overall benefits to the economy, like more people working, and more people spending their money to keep the wealthy in wealth, and allowing new wealth to be created.

The element of risk is a necessary element in wealth creation. The government cannot create wealth. Giving people money does not create wealth. When it is spent it is gone. It is the investment that grows wealth. If the money "invested" in infrastructure were to grow wealth, then the fact is that said money was taken from someone else through application of the tax laws. Thus, that person or entity was already going to invest it, but now it will not. So it is a wash. But wait, it is not wash...it is really a loss, as it is well established that better return are generated from private investment than from the government'a "investments". There is no profit incentive for the government, meaning that the job will not have to be done as efficiently as possible.

The spending of tax money is tantamount to pissing away the money. You will never create wealth from government spending in itself.

We obviously need roads and other infrastructure. However, do not be so dishonest about it by calling it an investment. The budgeting and account if any governmental project us so contrived, bloated, inefficient and wasteful that if a private company's books looked like theirs the banks would pull all funding and shut down the project immediately.

Get a ******* clue. I know you ideas make you feel good about yourself. But the reality is that lacking risk and profit motive you cannot create wealth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ilia25]

And the remainder of section 8 specifies what the legal expenditures of those funds are.

No, it does not. It specifies other (aside form taxation) powers of the Congress. For example: the Congress does not tax people in order to 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.

Taxes would be used to pay those debts, that would be a legal expenditure. Careful you're starting to reach the realm of the purely ignorant.

Yeah, and in order to remain sane your interpretation has to move even farther from the original text and become ever more complicated. There is a simpler version -- the Congress can tax, and it can borrow. Makes much more sense.

 

[auditor0007]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

You chart is bullshit because the ave size of the American family has been decreasing drastically for the last several decades.

Actually the chart is factual. WTF does the size of the American family have to do with this chart? Have another drink my friend.