Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[Doubletap]

Re-distribution=looting the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others.

 

[Oldstyle]

And what the success of New York and California shows me is that two industries...financial in New York and high tech in California are centered in Silicon Valley and New York City. If you work in either, chances are you're living around Silicon Valley or around New York City because you need to be close to where the action is.

Disagree with me? Then kindly explain why New York has had to come up with "tax free zones" to encourage investment in the State if their overall economy is so strong? Obviously it's because if you take away the people getting rich on Wall Street from this latest stock market bubble the New York economy is NOT that strong.

To qualify, they must be linked with a college and located on or "near" that college's campus

Bryant: Who doesn't want to be in a tax-free zone?




Governor Cuomo's "Tax-Free New York" Would Come at a High Cost

Eliminating taxes in college communities won't improve the economy, but it will undermine our public institutions.

The decade-long conservative campaign for lower taxes and limited government has hit a wall of public outrage over the unfairness of the American tax system

Of course, the governor is not really proposing to get rid of all taxes in New York. Instead he would eliminate all taxes – property, personal income, sales, and business – in new tax-free zones established in and around public and private colleges and universities in the state. Every one of these institutions of higher education are supported heavily by taxes in a host of ways: for their very existence and operations in the case of public colleges, and through research grants and government-provided or -guaranteed student grants and loans to private colleges.

If there is an idea behind the governor’s program, it is that the researchers and thinkers who work in higher education have long made university communities incubators of new businesses. Creating tax-free zones around New York universities is somehow supposed to make them more attractive to business innovation. But Governor Cuomo has this totally backwards. Universities are business innovators because of the creative people who work there.

Eliminating taxes around a community college or university does not make the people who teach and do research more creative or innovative. Businesses don’t start in university communities because of low taxes. Businesses are started in university communities because of the quality of the researchers and intellectual richness of the faculty.

Attracting and supporting them takes money – from taxes!


Governor Cuomo's "Tax-Free New York" Would Come at a High Cost | Roosevelt Institute

That in no way explained why New York State is creating tax free zones if your contention that higher taxes don't slow down the economy is correct. The truth is that even a Democrat like Cuomo grasps that taxes in his State are too high and that it's costing jobs.

 

[Oldstyle]

But what I find amusing is that Democrats have decided that it's faculty at colleges that should decide who gets picked for these tax free zones...because as we all know...academics know so gosh darned much about business!

 

[Contumacious]

Re-distribution=looting the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others.

WUT?

There is a lot of work involved in being a parasite.

Firstly, they have to thoroughly research to find out who is the best provider ...is it Hillary Rodham or Elizabeth Warren? Then They have to vote early and often. And must avoid dimpled or hanging chads.

No sireee, the life of a parasite is not easy.

.

 

[williepete]

If you are permitted by virtue of citizenship or special accommodation to make use of this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources to generate wealth, whether by physical labor or via capital investments, you have thus converted resources, which are the real wealth of this Nation, into monetary wealth. Of course some percentage of that converted wealth is yours because of the effort you expended to convert it. But do you disagree that some percentage of it belongs to the original source, which is the Nation?

Even as an employed worker you are required to pay a percentage of the converted wealth you receive for your labor to the federal government in the form of an income tax. Because were it not for this Nation's available resources your employer would have no need for your service in helping to convert them.

Thanks for the reasoned and measured response Mike!

Looks like we both believe in earned private property to varying degrees so we're not too far apart. (Red highlight).

Our view of our nation and economy differs on a philosophical level. I fit well into your view without agreeing with it.

I see the government deriving its power from the people. We allow the government to borrow power from us. I don't see our government permitting us to live as we see fit. (I know, quite a fantasy in this age of regulation). I'm no libertarian by a long shot but they have produced a few essays and speeches concerning the difference between rights and privileges that would make my point far better.

Believe me, I have returned a huge amount of my earnings back to the government of this country. Where we civilly disagree is that I don't consider this tax burden belonging to the original source. I'm not a collectivist. I don't believe that the means of production belong to the state. (And therefore I am lucky that I'm "permitted" to use them). I'm an individual who has the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't dodge any tax burden and I've never hired an accountant to pay as little as possible. I've paid full freight my whole life. I've rendered unto Caesar what is his. This government has done well off my earnings. I've also put my life on the line protecting this system of government because I believe in it so much. That investment in principle cost 6 of my squadron mates their lives.

I believe I have opportunity. Far more opportunity than had I been born into a collectivist, authoritarian nation like Cuba where central planning dictates the outcome of opportunity, effort and result. People in Cuba are permitted to do things--what I call restricted. In my vision of a free country, you have opportunity and liberty. What you do with your natural talents determines your outcome--not the central planning committee.

Mike, thanks again for your civil and reasoned response. You communicated your position clearly and civilly. You make it easy for me to respect your position yet civilly disagree with it. A breath of fresh air on this board.

Cheers

 

[williepete]

No founding father ever considered it ok for the federal government to implement a forcible confiscatory tax based upon an arbitrary standard of wealth for the purpose of exacting an arbitrary standard of social justice not found anywhere in law. Such an action would shock the conscience of the founders as it far exceeds what was intended in the taxing clause of the federal constitution. Such a social-engineering tax is exactly the type of arbitrary bullshit that would come from the crown, and therefore would have been opposed by the founders.

 

[The Rabbi]

The amazing thing is anyone thinks redistributing wealth through taxation would solve anything.
Let's consider how this works, remembering the Liberals can't think beyond Stage One.
So we institute punitive taxes, say 90% on incomes over, say, $500k. At that point someone is working for the government 90% of the time. Why would they do that? They'll simply work less and make almost the same amount of money. Further, you take the money from taxes and do what? Additional welfare payments? Student loan forgiveness? The people getting the benefit will come to expect it while the people giving it will simply stop putting themselves in the position of having to pay it.
The result is less economic growth, more dependence, and higher deficits.

 

[1776]

OP is a typical shit-eater.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good think O and B support Gov't policy versus that 'voluntary' crap you moth off about...

9 CEO's? Oh stock options where they've gained their Corps NOT able to do that pre Reagan, weird right (stock for payments)...

I know CEO's cutting costs at all available options, layoffs, off shoring jobs, temp workers, 'helps' the stock prices (at least temporarily)and the top 1/10th of 1% who get over 50% of Corp dividends, but how does it help US?


Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO

Study: The Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO (Vocativ)

Daniel Edward Rosen looks at a study from the University of Utah, which shows that companies that pay CEOs more than $20 million a year have average annual losses over $1 billion.


The Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO | Vocativ

Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow and Director of Research Susan Holmberg and Campus Network alumna Lydia Austin look at additional ways high CEO pay distorts the economy.


Fixing a Hole: How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers

Fixing a Hole: How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers | Roosevelt Institute

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says - Forbes

the top 1/10th of 1% who get over 50% of Corp dividends,

You have a link for this claim?

CLAIM? OH FACT BUBBA

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes





Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

But the upper 0.1% gained the most. Share of pretax
income earned by top 0.1% increased from 2.7% (1977) to12.3% (2007), which is 66% of increase to upper 1%

http://www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmed.../20120502_1830_towardEconomicFeudalism_sl.pdf

There is “optimal level” of inequality incentives for resource allocation, but market economy can exceed that level and that US has done so to fall into a social/economic danger zone


1) Logic and experiment.

2)Statistics showing US inequality is exceptionally high.

3) Inequality incentives → people at top to game system, which
produced the crime, near-crime, chicanery behind Wall Street
implosion.

4) Stock option incentives that fuel income of highest paid are not associated with better company performance.

5) Inequality leads to “economic feudalism”--economy/society
run by a small clique of super-wealthy insiders (aka “crony
capitalism”; plutocracy, etc.)


http://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/558084/miegunyah.pdf

CLAIM? OH FACT BUBBA

Thanks for the link.


Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

Interesting.

the top 1/10th of 1% who get over 50% of Corp dividends,

Doesn't help your claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

Well, if they lost $300 million in 2008, why would they pay taxes in 2009?
If they gave $300 million to charity in 2009, why would they pay taxes in 2009?

That's a fair question.

DON'T KNOW WHAT ADJUSTED MEANS HUH?

"A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009"


Those losses would be PRE adjusted incomes

Johnston's article is interesting, but I didn't see backup in his link about the 6 families who paid zero. What page was it on?

And don't forget, charitable deductions are POST AGI.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top. Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Data from tax returns show that the top 1 percent of households received 8.9 percent of all pre-tax income in 1976. In 2008, the top 1 percent share had more than doubled to 21.0 percent.

This level of income inequality, research shows, endangers our society, on a variety of fronts.

Income Inequality | Inequality.org

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top.

It's amazing how well you can do when you're the only major economy in the world not bombed into rubble.

Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Eventually, those other nations rebuilt.

Sorry, 90% of the nations were rebuilt by 1955 100% by 1960, what happened the next 20+ years again?


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.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. 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

Sorry, 90% of the nations were rebuilt by 1955 100% by 1960, what happened the next 20+ years again?

Japan built more and better cars. More and better electronics.
The US went from a net exporter to a net importer.
I guess those rebuilt nations needed fewer of our goods, had more, high quality goods to sell to us.
Our unionized manufacturers had a harder time competing with modernized foreign factories which didn't have our large legacy costs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.


The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Yeah, the 'rich' create jobs *shaking head* Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?


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.



A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available. That's more than 10,000 wealthy households paying no taxes anywhere in the world, and more than 35,000 paying no U.S. income tax.

How Thousands of Wealthy People Pay No Taxes (It's Totally Legal) - DailyFinance

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

Well, if they lost $300 million in 2008, why would they pay taxes in 2009?
If they gave $300 million to charity in 2009, why would they pay taxes in 2009?

Don'yt know what adjusted income is huh?



26 U.S. Code § 62 - Adjusted gross income defined


a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions:

(1) Trade and business deductions

The deductions allowed by this chapter (other than by part VII of this subchapter) which are attributable to a trade or business carried on by the taxpayer, if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee.

(3) Losses from sale or exchange of property

The deductions allowed by part VI (sec. 161 and following) as losses from the sale or exchange of property.


(4) Deductions attributable to rents and royalties

The deductions allowed by part VI (sec. 161 and following), by section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income), and by section 611 (relating to depletion) which are attributable to property held for the production of rents or royalties.


(6) Pension, profit-sharing, and annuity plans of self-employed individuals

In the case of an individual who is an employee within the meaning of section 401 (c)(1), the deduction allowed by section 404.

26 U.S. Code § 62 - Adjusted gross income defined | LII / Legal Information Institute


THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE GET THAT INCOME FROM TAX FREE BONDS! Like I said, top 1/10th of 1% get 50% of dividends

Are you saying they paid no taxes on their tax free bonds? Shocking!

Do you need me to explain the difference between interest and dividends?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 purpose of taxation is to create and maintain a source of revenue for essential functions of government.
Whomever convinced you that it is the job of government to confiscate the assets of one then turn it over to people such as yourself sold you a bill of goods.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

Be careful, government pushing home ownership may have negative consequences.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Which it does.
However, your angle is to use taxation not as a source of revenue, but as a means to punish and to choose winners and losers.
That is not how our government is set up. That is not compatible with our representative republic. Nor is it compatible with the concepts of freedom and liberty.
If you want total socialist utopia, I suggest you pick one of those countries and move there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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:

Ahh...and here's the last layer of the peeled onion.
Invariably one of you lefties gets caught in the "I am pro union" leg hold trap.
That's what this whole income inequality/wealth redistribution through excessive taxation thing is about....Unions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Don't be ridiculous. Government can produce useful services as any person or business -- this creating additional value.

You don't redistribute incomes to create more wealth. This is done done create more equal wealth distribution.



Not true. Wealth the product of labor.



Even this is not always true. When the economy is depressed (as it is since 2008), a lot of money are not invested, sitting idle. In that case the government can create more investment.

Also, private sector often invests money in useless projects. Like bitcoin, or gold mining, or one can argue that most of financial sector is a big casino benefiting only owners and providing no benefit to the society.

But that's not the point -- we redistribute incomes to create more equality, not to increathe wealth.



Yeah, right... ever heard of bubbles?



No incentive? Government employees can and do get fired for unacceptable performance.



Repeating that mantra does not make it true.

We obviously need roads and other infrastructure. However, do not be so dishonest about it by calling it an investment.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word "investment". Investment means an act of devoting time, effort, or money to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.

Building a road is an investment, whether it is build by a government, or a private company.

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.

You wish..

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.

I don't think you understand the meaning "wealth" any more than "investment".
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Wealth is not the product of labor.
Wealth is the product of production.
Case and point. We have two factories. One older which has 100 workers using older technology. It runs on shift per day.
Right next door, there is a modern factory making the same product. Only this facility is technologically advanced. There are 20 workers. This facility runs three shifts( 24 hours) per day. Production is 10 times the that of the older plant.
Which one generates more wealth for the owners and of course the employees?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

He's referring to the TeaBagged Constitution. The rest of us live under the US Constitution, that the TeaBaggeds deny existence of.

I don't get the whole idea of making an idol out of Constitution. It was created to improve people lives, not to be an excuse for making people suffer. Also, it was designed amendable for this very reason -- so we can improve it.

The thing is that so many people doubt their own intelligence, and for a good reason -- and they hope that with the Constitution they won't have to use their brains.

There is a process by which the US Constitution can be amended. It is a difficult process and that is by design. The Framers did not want the Document to be changed at the mere political whim of a few individuals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

If by welfare sewer, you mean handouts to corporations and billionaire, yes, that's where almost all of the money goes directly, and indirectly. Walmart gets more subsidies in a year than all of the single moms and down on their luck families who get a few bucks to survive on.

The best economy that developed nations have seen was during times of high taxation on high income earners and capital gains receivers.

Cut the bullshit.
Over 50% of the federal budget is spent on social programs

 

[Ernie S.]

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

The increase in productivity in the last 35 years is a result of capital spending by corporations for technological advances. Workers don't have to know any more, they don't work harder or longer hours. Corporations have spent trillions on CNC machines, robots, computers and automated inventory control to make their employees' jobs easier. Are you telling me that a guy who stands by a machining center and pushes a button every 5 minutes is worth more than a master machinist simply because there are more pieces on his cart at the end of the day?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

It says whatever is in the interest of the general welfare of the country as a whole. Since there's empirical evidence that helping the poor makes the US have a stronger economy, then you're argument has bitten the dust. Just the spending multipliers alone, especially in a time of still low demand in the aftermath of the GOP's Great Recession means your argument that government helping the poor is unconstitutional comes across as pure BS.

I have an idea.....If you are so interested in helping the poor, start writing checks.