Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[dblack]

Then we will have unacceptable level of equality. I don't whant to live in a country where half of national income goes to the top 1%.

Do you think you should have the right to spend your money however you wish?

 

[Oldstyle]

What you suggest is impossible. We can't all become CEOs. Even if everyone would get a college degree, some of us would have to work at McDonalds.

The income distribution is defined by the level of technological progress. As machines replace workers, inequality increases -- middle class jobs are replaced by a few very high paying ones and much more low income, low skilled jobs. That is why we have to engage in income redistribution if only to maintain the status quo -- more if we want to decrease inequality.

Where did I say that everyone should become a CEO? Where did I say that everyone should get a college degree? What I do say is that everyone should be left to find their own level of accomplishment and be compensated for doing so by a free market.

Then we will have unacceptable level of equality. I don't whant to live in a country where half of national income goes to the top 1%.

If you start out at McDonalds and choose to stay working as the "fry person" for the next forty years then why should the government step in and declare that you deserve the same amount of money as someone who worked at developing new skills to make themselves more valuable and thus got paid more? Do you really not grasp the effect that doing what you advocate would have?

I do not advocate a complete inequality. I'm for reducing it -- some people would still make tens times what the average person makes.

You seem to be suffering from the mistaken belief that there is a finite amount of wealth and that if A makes more than B that B cannot improve his financial situation without taking money away from A. I'm sorry but that's the mindset of people who really don't have a clue about economics.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Bravo!

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Don't point that out to bripat. You'll make his head explode.

Actually your head would explode if you really understood what he wrote.

My head might explode because of the cognitive dissonance of making his viewpoint match reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't point that out to bripat. You'll make his head explode.

Actually your head would explode if you really understood what he wrote.

My head might explode because of the cognitive dissonance of making his viewpoint match reality.

The reality is that a 2-parent household produces higher per household income, not lower. Since there are fewer two family households than previously household income tends to decline, except when off set by higher wages.
I realize that's an advanced concept--two incomes are generally more than one income--but if you want to play with the big dogs you'll have to learn it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The constitution should be amended to meet the modern marxist demands of govt dependent welfare parasites.....

Lean forward !!! Lmfao

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The constitution should be amended to meet the modern marxist demands of govt dependent welfare parasites.....

Lean forward !!! Lmfao

You mean the people who do all the work?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually your head would explode if you really understood what he wrote.

My head might explode because of the cognitive dissonance of making his viewpoint match reality.

The reality is that a 2-parent household produces higher per household income, not lower.

Mom usually stayed home back then.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

And yet, housing, food, energy, etc have all been increasing at alarming rates. Plus, with immigrants, we have more people than ever before. Recent immigrants have an average of 7.5 children per family, hardly a reduction. Would you care to site some source to prove your claim?

 

[Againsheila]

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

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

And he says right-wingers aren't very bright?

It's sort of like saying that since he can't keep his shoes tied, that's a reason why GOVERNMENT should step in with some kind of "program" to fix the problem.

The government caused this problem with changes in corporate and import/export laws. They have to fix it, no one else can.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

And yet, housing, food, energy, etc have all been increasing at alarming rates. Plus, with immigrants, we have more people than ever before. Recent immigrants have an average of 7.5 children per family, hardly a reduction. Would you care to site some source to prove your claim?

Housing actually took a dive a few yeas back. Maybe you noticed.

 

[OKTexas]

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:

Yep, the decline in union membership can be directly traced to the government regulations that forced most of our manufacturing job out of this country. The government is the one forcing us to become a consumer driven economy and with that wages will continue to decline. You want that to change, make it easier to manufacture here and the better wages will return.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

And they are restricted by the Constitution what they can spend either on.

 

[The Rabbi]

My head might explode because of the cognitive dissonance of making his viewpoint match reality.

The reality is that a 2-parent household produces higher per household income, not lower.

Mom usually stayed home back then.

You're talking over 30 years ago, yes. Since tht time more women have ended up in the workforce. Or didnt you notice?

 

[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.

And yet, housing, food, energy, etc have all been increasing at alarming rates. Plus, with immigrants, we have more people than ever before. Recent immigrants have an average of 7.5 children per family, hardly a reduction. Would you care to site some source to prove your claim?

Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births | National Review Online

Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

 

[bripat9643]

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:

Yep, the decline in union membership can be directly traced to the government regulations that forced most of our manufacturing job out of this country. The government is the one forcing us to become a consumer driven economy and with that wages will continue to decline. You want that to change, make it easier to manufacture here and the better wages will return.

Also consider all the illegal aliens who are driving wages lower. You can blame the Dims for that as well.

 

[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. 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.

Ignorance, try reading the founders to determine intent. The Supreme Court ignored their writings and evidently you have no problem with that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yep, the decline in union membership can be directly traced to the government regulations that forced most of our manufacturing job out of this country.

No it can't. Decline in the share of the economy that manufacturing holds has been going down since the 50's - not the 70's.

The government is the one forcing us to become a consumer driven economy and with that wages will continue to decline. You want that to change, make it easier to manufacture here and the better wages will return.

No they aren't.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, the decline in union membership can be directly traced to the government regulations that forced most of our manufacturing job out of this country.

No it can't. Decline in the share of the economy that manufacturing holds has been going down since the 50's - not the 70's.

Manufacturing has been declining only in terms of the amount of labor employed. In terms of the value of products produced, it is increasing. Automation has been eliminating a log of manufacturing jobs, not imports.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, the decline in union membership can be directly traced to the government regulations that forced most of our manufacturing job out of this country.

No it can't. Decline in the share of the economy that manufacturing holds has been going down since the 50's - not the 70's.

Manufacturing has been declining only in terms of the amount of labor employed. In terms of the value of products produced, it is increasing. Automation has been eliminating a log of manufacturing jobs, not imports.

This is exactly it. Fewer people in the field earning more money producing more goods. That is improvement in efficiency and automation. We ought to celebrate this, not decry it.