A word about redistribution of wealth
- Thread starter jonbig04
- Start date
Quote from Mav88:
That chart has nothing to do with what your original point- which was wrong. You said there was wealth transfer from the middle class to the the top. The top 20% pay much more in taxes than the middle 60%, the fact that they might get back a little more (it's not FAR less as you assert) is not relevent. What is relevent is the percentage of what they pay in taxes that is returned to them. If it is less than 100% then there is net transfer out. That is the case as the article points out and I already posted. The middle 60% gets more than $1 back for every dollar they pay in, and the top gets less. You are still wrong.
True, I was just pointing out that you were wrong on that particular point.
However my original point is in question, I agree. But its not dead yet. This is a long paper you sent me.
you telling me that you don't understand this also? hmmm, just hmmm.
If thats true then could I assume that every time rates were raised (even only a little) on the upper class that an economic slow down followed? Is this what you are saying?
You mean the kind of regulation that republicans wanted but Barney Frank said was unnecessary? Typical liberal, substitute anecdotes for data and make policy.
Please. Check your facts again. Congress was controlled by republicans during that time and the bill was never even brought to a vote
yup, but explaining would be a waste of time here I see. It's funny, Barney Frank was just on CNBC saying that he will encourage Obama to hold off on all taxes increases for a year. Why do you think he said that?
Once again, if what you're saying is true then couldnt I assume that every tax increase (even the small ones) on the upper "producing" class was followed by economic decline? Just need clarification here.
The problem, once again, is that current entitlements are the road to ruin. By far those at the recieving end are demo constituents, and this problem is by far the largest fiscal problem we face.
Hang on. At the beginning of this thread you said the middle class was the biggest recipient of entitlements (which we found to not be true), and now you are saying those people are democrat constituents? What happened to limousine liberals and the liberal elite? As far as the middle class goes, it would be a very very far stretch indeed to characterize them as democratic constituents.
If you could get your liberal buddies to go after just hedgies, bad CEOs, millionaire entertainers and athletes, socialite heiresses, and other assorted maggots then I would be the biggest cheerleader. But what happens is that the real producers will get caught in the demo tax drag net and we will all suffer.
I was talking about regulation. The "real producers" won't mind a bit of it I'm sure.
Under the section marked "NASA".
Some seem not to care about inequality at all. Do you really not care when someone in your own country can not afford health care and a place to live ór do you just look the other way? Even if you don't care, a highly unequal society is not a good place to live. Rich people retreat to their gated communities, while tensions rise and at some point will materialize. Is paying a bit more taxes on income above 250k really such a big price to keep inequality constrained? I'm all for lower taxes, but not at any cost.
America has become more unequal over the past decades. Take for example the gini coefficient. Although an imperfect measurement of inequality, it can show a clear trend. During the previous decades it shows that the USA has become a less equal place (see link below). I live in europe and here things could be a bit less equal (to give incentives for people to get off their ass), but in the USA you're clearly at the other end of the scale.
Powel makes some wise remarks about taxes (see video below, from 5:20). "There is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is and who should be paying more and who should be paying less ... ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4-1c0H1-zbc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4-1c0H1-zbc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
America has become more unequal over the past decades. Take for example the gini coefficient. Although an imperfect measurement of inequality, it can show a clear trend. During the previous decades it shows that the USA has become a less equal place (see link below). I live in europe and here things could be a bit less equal (to give incentives for people to get off their ass), but in the USA you're clearly at the other end of the scale.
Powel makes some wise remarks about taxes (see video below, from 5:20). "There is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is and who should be paying more and who should be paying less ... ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4-1c0H1-zbc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4-1c0H1-zbc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Some seem not to care about inequality at all. Do you really not care when someone in your own country can not afford health care and a place to live ór do you just look the other way? Even if you don't care, a highly unequal society is not a good place to live. Rich people retreat to their gated communities, while tensions rise and at some point will materialize. Is paying a bit more taxes on income above 250k really such a big price to keep inequality constrained? I'm all for lower taxes, but not at any cost.
Highly equal societies are shitholes, because the only way to equalize is to make everyone poor. A homeless street drunk cannot be, and will not be, anything close Bill Gates, but Bill Gates can become a street drunk. The only way to equalize them is to bring Gates down to the street drunk level. Sweden tried to equalize, now their per capita income is markedly lower than ours. They had to peel back the welfare state since it bankrupt them much quicker than anyone imagined. Yet here we are in 2008 and much of the american left salivates at the opportunity to be like sweden. Obama is a big step in that direction. It's not about a few percent change, that's only the first step as there will never be enough money to equalize, or for libs to feel like america is not 'mean'.
There are many things I cannot afford, things that would make me healthier and happier, should I demand that someone richer than I get purchase them for me? There is no end to defining what is need, there is never enough cash to prevent or stop mortal pain and suffering, and certainly not enough to make the world the way you want. Before you lecture me on looking the other way, verify to me that you have given your last penny because only until then will you not be rich compared with someone else. As for me, I know that far more advancement of social welfare has come from the man trying to make a buck than from the man giving away one.
Inequality is a fact of life, always has been, always will be. Only children demand economic equality. Tensions rise when people stop trying for themsleves and look to others to fix their largely self created mess.
Highly equal societies are shitholes, because the only way to equalize is to make everyone poor. A homeless street drunk cannot be, and will not be, anything close Bill Gates, but Bill Gates can become a street drunk. The only way to equalize them is to bring Gates down to the street drunk level. Sweden tried to equalize, now their per capita income is markedly lower than ours. They had to peel back the welfare state since it bankrupt them much quicker than anyone imagined. Yet here we are in 2008 and much of the american left salivates at the opportunity to be like sweden. Obama is a big step in that direction. It's not about a few percent change, that's only the first step as there will never be enough money to equalize, or for libs to feel like america is not 'mean'.
There are many things I cannot afford, things that would make me healthier and happier, should I demand that someone richer than I get purchase them for me? There is no end to defining what is need, there is never enough cash to prevent or stop mortal pain and suffering, and certainly not enough to make the world the way you want. Before you lecture me on looking the other way, verify to me that you have given your last penny because only until then will you not be rich compared with someone else. As for me, I know that far more advancement of social welfare has come from the man trying to make a buck than from the man giving away one.
Inequality is a fact of life, always has been, always will be. Only children demand economic equality. Tensions rise when people stop trying for themsleves and look to others to fix their largely self created mess.
If thats true then could I assume that every time rates were raised (even only a little) on the upper class that an economic slow down followed? Is this what you are saying?
It's not that simple, economics cannot be reduced to simple cause and effect and there are a lot of variable to contend with. But macrotrends can be observed with reasonable correlation.
Why do inner cities set up enterprise zones that feature lower taxes?
"You mean the kind of regulation that republicans wanted but Barney Frank said was unnecessary? Typical liberal, substitute anecdotes for data and make policy. "....
Please. Check your facts again. Congress was controlled by republicans during that time and the bill was never even brought to a vote
You don't have to be in the majority to block legislation, there are lots of procedural techniques you can use.
'The problem, once again, is that current entitlements are the road to ruin. By far those at the recieving end are demo constituents, and this problem is by far the largest fiscal problem we face. '....
Hang on. At the beginning of this thread you said the middle class was the biggest recipient of entitlements (which we found to not be true), and now you are saying those people are democrat constituents? What happened to limousine liberals and the liberal elite? As far as the middle class goes, it would be a very very far stretch indeed to characterize them as democratic constituents.
When the middle class gets old and starts sucking on the gov't teat, they generally support anybody who promises to keep the gravy train rolling. The AARP is considered an arm of the AFL/CIO
limosine libs are just trying to feel good, I think it is guilt. Liberal educational elites need the government to pay them to keep hating the government and publishing tripe.
Well that's wrong -- even though they're a much smaller country they're right in the game:
In 2006:
Sweden: $43580
United States: $44970
http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
GDP Nominal Per Capita (2007):
Sweden: $49,603
United States: $45,725
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
GDP (PPP) Per Capita (2007) (Note PPP may not apply)
Sweden: $36,578
United States: $45,725
Economist Quality of Life Index:
Sweden: Rank 5
United States: Rank 13
And by the way, Sweden has had a balanced budget since about the year 2000.
by Kathleen Reardon
If I were Senators Obama and Biden, I'd be asking out loud whether the American people really prefer the current redistribution of wealth to continue enveloping people who once owned part of the American dream.
Do the American people want more of the same, until the only people left standing are the very rich?
Do the American people want to continue feeding what can only be called greedism, just to avoid any faint scent or whiff of dreaded "socialism"?
Instead, isn't it time to recognize greedism for the despicable, addictive, soul-destroying monster that it is? Shouldn't wealth without compassion be despised, not prized?
We've been living the redistribution of wealth to our country's detriment. Look what it has given us. And yet John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to set one part of the country against the other -- those with money against those without.
They are crafting a fiction that generosity is bad for all of us because it might require that the wealthiest give up something they've long accused the poor of refusing to relinquish - entitlements.
Americans don't fear socialism because it isn't going to happen. They don't fear the redistribution of wealth but the permanent distribution of poverty at their doorsteps. They fear the demise of fairness.
What happened to all of us carrying some burden so that none of us is deprived? "True Americans" are not the people who wear the right hats, as Sarah Palin has implied. They are people who want for their children and other people's children a fair shake, a leg up when needed, and a shot at the dream.
If I were Senators Obama and Biden, I'd be asking out loud whether the American people really prefer the current redistribution of wealth to continue enveloping people who once owned part of the American dream.
Do the American people want more of the same, until the only people left standing are the very rich?
Do the American people want to continue feeding what can only be called greedism, just to avoid any faint scent or whiff of dreaded "socialism"?
Instead, isn't it time to recognize greedism for the despicable, addictive, soul-destroying monster that it is? Shouldn't wealth without compassion be despised, not prized?
We've been living the redistribution of wealth to our country's detriment. Look what it has given us. And yet John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to set one part of the country against the other -- those with money against those without.
They are crafting a fiction that generosity is bad for all of us because it might require that the wealthiest give up something they've long accused the poor of refusing to relinquish - entitlements.
Americans don't fear socialism because it isn't going to happen. They don't fear the redistribution of wealth but the permanent distribution of poverty at their doorsteps. They fear the demise of fairness.
What happened to all of us carrying some burden so that none of us is deprived? "True Americans" are not the people who wear the right hats, as Sarah Palin has implied. They are people who want for their children and other people's children a fair shake, a leg up when needed, and a shot at the dream.