Since few people are rich and productive and most people are envious and less-productive, every country has a whore-politic in varied forms which peddle the envious to get their votes and depend on a nanny state. Envy of the rich is as old as the desire for sex. Whores cater to the latter and Democrats the former.
A word about redistribution of wealth
- Thread starter jonbig04
- Start date
Should wealth be redistributed from those who have to those who do not have? That is the question.
We are already redistributing wealth in this country via welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, TANF (cash hand outs to the poor), CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Program) and any number of other tax payer funded social programs.
There is nothing wrong with this and in fact is a function that an advanced country should provide to its populace. Nearly every person at some point in life will need a helping hand when times are rough.
The problem arises when this helping hand becomes a lifestyle and the recipients feel entitled to a certain lifestyle/standard of living that is provided by the government via tax payer funded social programs.
The answer to the question of wealth redistribution is: Yes it should be practiced within limits (meaning temporary assistance with defined limits). I doubt many Americans would mind paying taxes that provide a temporary safety net in temporary times of need.
The real question is: How does government provide a helping hand without making it a lifestyle?
When the safety net becomes a lifestyle there is no longer incentive to improve ones self and to become a net contributor instead of a net taker. After all, if I can live off of the government why should I try to get a job/start a business and be a productive tax paying member of society.
The other question I have is, why do entitlement minded people feel they have a right to receive a guaranteed standard of living from the government? I have yet to understand how a person with an ounce of self respect and pride could be content living off the government (or should I say the fruits of others labor).
When Obama, or any other politician, talks about "spreading the wealth", I do not think of a temporary safety net, I think of a lifestyle. What he is saying is that your lifestyle is not good enough and therefore I am going to take from those that have and give to you so that you can live a better lifestyle. That fundamentally says that it is now the governments responsibility to provide and your right to receive a certain standard of living regardless if you work for it or not. That is fundamentally wrong.
We are already redistributing wealth in this country via welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, TANF (cash hand outs to the poor), CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Program) and any number of other tax payer funded social programs.
There is nothing wrong with this and in fact is a function that an advanced country should provide to its populace. Nearly every person at some point in life will need a helping hand when times are rough.
The problem arises when this helping hand becomes a lifestyle and the recipients feel entitled to a certain lifestyle/standard of living that is provided by the government via tax payer funded social programs.
The answer to the question of wealth redistribution is: Yes it should be practiced within limits (meaning temporary assistance with defined limits). I doubt many Americans would mind paying taxes that provide a temporary safety net in temporary times of need.
The real question is: How does government provide a helping hand without making it a lifestyle?
When the safety net becomes a lifestyle there is no longer incentive to improve ones self and to become a net contributor instead of a net taker. After all, if I can live off of the government why should I try to get a job/start a business and be a productive tax paying member of society.
The other question I have is, why do entitlement minded people feel they have a right to receive a guaranteed standard of living from the government? I have yet to understand how a person with an ounce of self respect and pride could be content living off the government (or should I say the fruits of others labor).
When Obama, or any other politician, talks about "spreading the wealth", I do not think of a temporary safety net, I think of a lifestyle. What he is saying is that your lifestyle is not good enough and therefore I am going to take from those that have and give to you so that you can live a better lifestyle. That fundamentally says that it is now the governments responsibility to provide and your right to receive a certain standard of living regardless if you work for it or not. That is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe we should hear what McCain said about this issue a little while ago:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Since I've been studying politics, I've had this question that I've never fully understand. Why is it that someone like my father, who goes to school for 13 years, gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor? Why is that -- why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else, just because he makes more money? Why -- how is that fair?
MATTHEWS: You mean...
MCCAIN: I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous.
But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view...
MATTHEWS: How many -- how many people here believe that the people who made the highest level of incomes in this country should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
Miss, do you want to follow up? Miss, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up? Go ahead.
MCCAIN: Do you want to follow up? Please...
MATTHEWS: Go ahead, please, go ahead.
MCCAIN: ... you were dissatisfied with Chris's comment, I could tell.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I still don't see how the -- how that's fair. Isn't the definition of slavery basically where you work and all your money goes? I'm not saying this is slavery, I'm saying that isn't the defin -- are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff, when you have -- you have some people paying 60 percent overall in a year of their money to taxes. That's their money, not the government's. How is that fair? I haven't understood it.
MCCAIN: Could I point out, one of the fundamentals of a town hall meeting is, we respect the views of others, and let them speak. So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme."
Seneca
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Since I've been studying politics, I've had this question that I've never fully understand. Why is it that someone like my father, who goes to school for 13 years, gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor? Why is that -- why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else, just because he makes more money? Why -- how is that fair?
MATTHEWS: You mean...
MCCAIN: I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous.
But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view...
MATTHEWS: How many -- how many people here believe that the people who made the highest level of incomes in this country should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
Miss, do you want to follow up? Miss, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up? Go ahead.
MCCAIN: Do you want to follow up? Please...
MATTHEWS: Go ahead, please, go ahead.
MCCAIN: ... you were dissatisfied with Chris's comment, I could tell.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I still don't see how the -- how that's fair. Isn't the definition of slavery basically where you work and all your money goes? I'm not saying this is slavery, I'm saying that isn't the defin -- are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff, when you have -- you have some people paying 60 percent overall in a year of their money to taxes. That's their money, not the government's. How is that fair? I haven't understood it.
MCCAIN: Could I point out, one of the fundamentals of a town hall meeting is, we respect the views of others, and let them speak. So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme."
Seneca
or how about Palin's redistribution plans ( not counting her Chavez like taxing of oil in Alaska so she could cut HER FAMILY a $20000+ check),
"GOP Spent $150, 000 in Donations on Palin's Look
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 22, 2008
Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's presidential campaign said thousands of dollars worth of clothing purchased by the Republican Party for running mate Sarah Palin will go to a ''charitable purpose'' after the campaign."
I'm sure those people who are giving up buying Rxs will appreciate the gesture.
In addition, she may have tax fraud problems:
"Sarah Palin's got problems. The $150,000 spent on her clothes now counts as taxable income, and if she doesn't pay the (large) amount of tax she owes, she could face tax fraud charges.
How do I know? Because the Bush Justice Department says so. In fact, in a great "hoist on their petard" moment, the Bushies have ALREADY indicted another politician (and, no surprise, not a Republican, but a Democrat who endorsed Obama) for EXACTLY the same circumstances that Palin finds herself in. So break out the checkbook, Sarah: you owe $45,000 in taxes for your clothes, and if you don't pay it, you can go to jail. (And P.S.: if your political supporters pick up the tab, that's MORE income. Just delicious.)"
Seneca
"GOP Spent $150, 000 in Donations on Palin's Look
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 22, 2008
Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's presidential campaign said thousands of dollars worth of clothing purchased by the Republican Party for running mate Sarah Palin will go to a ''charitable purpose'' after the campaign."
I'm sure those people who are giving up buying Rxs will appreciate the gesture.
In addition, she may have tax fraud problems:
"Sarah Palin's got problems. The $150,000 spent on her clothes now counts as taxable income, and if she doesn't pay the (large) amount of tax she owes, she could face tax fraud charges.
How do I know? Because the Bush Justice Department says so. In fact, in a great "hoist on their petard" moment, the Bushies have ALREADY indicted another politician (and, no surprise, not a Republican, but a Democrat who endorsed Obama) for EXACTLY the same circumstances that Palin finds herself in. So break out the checkbook, Sarah: you owe $45,000 in taxes for your clothes, and if you don't pay it, you can go to jail. (And P.S.: if your political supporters pick up the tab, that's MORE income. Just delicious.)"
Seneca
Chavez is right. Palin is right.
Palin's actions have already delayed or stopped the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would deliver gas to the lower 48.
I don't see that as right after all, McCain opposed and voted against the same type of tax, and we still have an energy problem.
Glad to see you are seeing the good side of socialism though by supporting the champion of freedom: Chavez.
Seneca
Do you consider the Gulf States to be socialists too? The Kingdom's distribute petro-profits to their subjects. If BP and ConocoPhillips etal don't like it than they can buy their own land.
It's the same beef I have with the FCC and television broadcasters. We the people own those airwaves. Where's OUR residual? Just because the FCC grants me channel 8 for PabstTV should I now control a transferable property worth tens of millions of dollars? Bullshit.
It's the same beef I have with the FCC and television broadcasters. We the people own those airwaves. Where's OUR residual? Just because the FCC grants me channel 8 for PabstTV should I now control a transferable property worth tens of millions of dollars? Bullshit.
The Gulf States operate under a different deal. Conoco, Exxon etc LEASED the land back when with the understanding they would pay the state a royalty. Now national disgrace Palin says, let's change the deal, and you have to pay taxes too just because you are successful. This is EXACTLY what she rails against when she is using Joe the Unvetted Plumber's name.
IMO, I like the idea of production sharing agreements like the Gulf States use, if it is UP FRONT. I'd like to see ANWR leased that way.
Seneca
Subject: Obama's redistribute the wealth
Original source of below is unknown but imagine the possibilities this brings to the well to do demons of society.
Employers could announce the consideration of employee raises, then withhold those raises and give the proceeds to a worthy cause, preferably one involving non-workers ... PRICELESS!
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Original source of below is unknown but imagine the possibilities this brings to the well to do demons of society.
Employers could announce the consideration of employee raises, then withhold those raises and give the proceeds to a worthy cause, preferably one involving non-workers ... PRICELESS!
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
