Do You Support The Redistribution Of Wealth?

[conscript]

I don't support "redistribution" but I support far more progressive tax rates than we have now in the States. I don't think the investment folks should be paying a far smaller amount in tax percentages compared to the people who actually worked (speaking of which, if you didn't watch the Daily Show last night you should see it about Romney's government subsidy through his gains tax rate that is equivalent to 2,000 years of food stamps for a family). I think tax rates should be much higher when you start to get into obscene amounts of wealth. Obscenely high tax rates on upper incomes is what built the US following WW2. It forces the wealthy to grow their business and create jobs. I don't think it is healthy for the heirs of Walmart to control more wealth than most of the country combined (built largely on an empire that destroyed businesses through Chinese importing advantage). I guess if you count that as redistribution count me a fan, but as for taking every dime everyone in the country makes and putting it in a big pot and writing 300 million equal checks out of it, ya not a fan of that much socialism.

[ptwonline]

Where does this "re-distribution" of wealth actually stop at?

Being a small business owner, we pay enough taxes as it is, I am unable to make my business grow at this time because I have reached a critical point where income is not increasing, and I still make enough to pay a couple employee's + myself, PLUS all the applicable taxes. Raising taxes means putting someone out of work in order to keep the business open. Lowering taxes means I can pay more money out to grow the business.

Instead of redistributing the wealth, people need to SPEND IT. Not save it.

Per the Federal Reserve: Lifespan of a Dollar. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/h...aper-money.htm

$1 4.8 years
$5 3.8 years
$10 3.6 years
$20 6.7 years
$50 9.6 years
$100 17.9 years

If you average the Sales tax rate of all states, it comes out to an average of 5%.

If you spend a dollar, every day for 4.8 Years, that makes a tax profit of (365 days x 4.5 Years) = @1642 Days, at a Nickel a day - $82.10 Dollars profit for every dollar spent. (On Average). That's for 1 person, spending 1 dollar. Multiply that by 100, 1000, or a Million, and it's a HUGE source of Tax Revenue.

This is why having more wealth in the hands of the pioor and middle class is actually so beneficial: they are more likely to spend it and put it back into the economy. Even the wealthy would grow wealthier if there was a stronger middle class (presuming the wealthy actually sold things to people to make their money, and didn't make their money by, oh, squeezing companies and their workers dry).

[Wells]

I support a base floor for standard of living for all americans. That's it.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I support a base floor for standard of living for all americans. That's it.

What we have here is a MarxistLeninistFascistSocialist.

[KingHorse]

The problem with this redistribution is that in an attempt to help the lower income people, you disproportionally hurt the middle class. Here's why:

The "rich" pay higher income taxes already, no need to fiddle with that. The "ZOMG LESS TAXES THAN MAH SECRETARY!!11!ELEVEN" everyone screams about is intentionally misleading gullible people for the purpose of demonizing rich people. The higher your salary, the more you are taxed, it's really that simple. What gets taxed lower is what's called capital gains. Capital gains are, essentially, profit from the sale of stocks and a handful of other things. Many "rich" people derive the majority of their income from capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at %15, while normal income in the "rich" income bracket is in the %45 neighborhood (I think).

Now there is some argument to be made to have capital gains taxed at the same rate as normal income. I can certainly understand that. But as with many policy decisions, there are unintended consequences with this one. Namely that most people who have a retirement account of any kind have that account primarily in something that is taxed at the capital gains rate. So the middle class (who holds a larger portion of stocks through these accounts than the rich we're trying to get money from) would now be hit with this tax on their retirement. Meanwhile, the rich people who were getting their money primarily from capital gains would swiftly find a new source, a new place to throw that money around. One that doesn't have such a high tax rate preferably. The result would be a tax on mostly middle income people just trying to save enough to retire, then when they're struggling, hit them again with the dramatic drop in the stock market as the rich people you were after flee to more tax friendly investments.

It's really a bad situation. I'm sketchy on the source and the math involved but from what I understand, taxing the rich at WWII rates of %90 would still result in a massive debt and deficit. There are only two ways to turn that trend around. Either raise taxes on (almost) everyone, including the middle class, or cut the hell out of what you're spending. Both sides have their favorite whipping boy they would love to see cut all to hell, and you know what? They're both right. "Entitlement" spending needs a good cut, and so does military spending. Military probably has more room to give while still being effective. But I'm not a budget whiz, so I don't know department by department where the spending should be cut from.

Edit: a proposal! What do we think of this: change the Capital Gains tax rate to %35 across the board, until you reach the age of retirement. Once retired (minimum age of 60 to call yourself retired?), you either pay the current %15 or possibly no taxes on it, don't know about that one.

[Shennanigans]

Nope. I quit working and stay home now to keep our income level in a lower tax bracket. Too much welfare fraud. Fix that then we will talk.

[Orlong]

I dont support it at all. If getting rich just means your money gets given to someone else, then nobody would work hard since not working hard gets you the same money and then we will live in a totally mediocre society if not substandard society since there is no motivation to be successful

[Korgoth]

No. Theft is wrong.

[Orlong]

ANY form of taxation and services provided are going to be "wealth redistribution" of a sort since it is pretty much impossible to divide up utility based on how much you pay. If I make $100K and my next door neighbor makes $50K and I pay 2x the amount in taxes, you can't really make my house 2x as safe via policing, or the streets providing 2x the access to my house.

This is the exact reason why there needs to be a flat DOLLAR tax that everyone pays and it should be the same dollar amount regardless of income and not a percentage since rich pay more for the same level of service. If rich pay more in taxes dollar wise, why not charge them more for everything too. If you make a million dollars a year some people think they should pay $45 for a Bic Mac meal at Mcdonalds, and the poor person should just walk in and pay 50 cents or get it free.

[cFortyfive]

Political association aside that problem will probably sort itself out over time like it did in history hopefully with enough blood spilling.

[ptwonline]

I dont support it at all. If getting rich just means your money gets given to someone else, then nobody would work hard since not working hard gets you the same money and then we will live in a totally mediocre society if not substandard society since there is no motivation to be successful

Yeah, since back when top marginal tax rates on the wealthy were more than twice what they are now nobody bothered to try to get rich since the gov't would take it all. /sarcasm

News flash: Every dollar you make makes you $1 better off. Even if the gov't were to take 50 cents of it, you're still better off. People will still try to make more and more even if the gov't takes a big share.

[Korgoth]

Yeah, since back when top marginal tax rates on the wealthy were more than twice what they are now nobody bothered to try to get rich since the gov't would take it all. /sarcasm

News flash: Every dollar you make makes you $1 better off. Even if the gov't were to take 50 cents of it, you're still better off. People will still try to make more and more even if the gov't takes a big share.

NEWS FLASH, NO ONE PAYED THOSE RATES. Just like how the Corporate Tax Rate is 35% but Obama's good friends at GE payed 0%. The tax code was filled with so many loop holes and deductions that the effective tax rate was far lower then todays.

[ptwonline]

This is the exact reason why there needs to be a flat DOLLAR tax that everyone pays and it should be the same dollar amount regardless of income and not a percentage since rich pay more for the same level of service. If rich pay more in taxes dollar wise, why not charge them more for everything too. If you make a million dollars a year some people think they should pay $45 for a Bic Mac meal at Mcdonalds, and the poor person should just walk in and pay 50 cents or get it free.

I would argue that if an infrastructure and generally orderly society exists that allows you to make $100K and your neighbor $50K, then the services that create the situation where you can make 2x as much is actually worth 2x as much to you (in dollar terms). So to ask you to pay ~2x as much is not really that unreasonable.

A family with a $100K home gets less benefit in monetary terms compared to a family with a $1M home from something like police protection. Is it fair that they pay the same amount for police?

Besides, your flat dollar tax idea would never work. Not enough people make enough money to pay for even a remote amount of the cost of services provided by the various levels of govt.

[insmek]

I absolutely believe in it, but I think the cap should be reasonably high before any sort of obnoxiously high tax rate kicks in--think, $100 million net worth or $5 million per year take home pay, or something like that. Past a certain point, people hit a sort of "critical mass" with money. They simply get to the point where they have all of the money they could possibly spend on anything they could possibly want. I mean, really, how much does it really change your consumer buying power when you have $10 billion instead of $500 million? It doesn't. You can still simply buy absolutely anything you want with no hesitation. You are still fabulously rich, and your descendants will likely be fabulously rich for generations to come.

For me, it begins to make even more sense when you think about how most of the ultra-rich in the United States made their money. A very large amount of them did so buy selling consumer products to everyday Americans, or by providing a service to everyday Americans. In a way, the ultra-rich owe the working people a debt of gratitude at the very least for getting them to the point that they are at. It's almost as if the American consumer is a shareholder in the personal wealth of the ultra-rich.

[ptwonline]

NEWS FLASH, NO ONE PAYED THOSE RATES. Just like how the Corporate Tax Rate is 35% but Obama's good friends at GE payed 0%. The tax code was filled with so many loop holes and deductions that the effective tax rate was far lower then todays.

Answer this: are you saying that you actually believe that if tax rates were significantly higher on higher levels of income, people would stop working to reach those levels?

I hope that isn't what you believe, because then you'd be living a complete fantasy. That's not how human nature works.

[Deleted]

There is 1 major flaw with any government. Be it democracy, communism or dictatorship.

We are humans of the model Homo Sapiens. We simply havent evolved enough to take on so much responsibility. Our brains havent changed a whole lot in the last couple of thousand years. Society has.

Put simple - we are, in our current model, not made to live in such big societys.
Try and think a little about it, does it make sense only to me? Or anyone else too? :/

[Korgoth]

I would argue that if an infrastructure and generally orderly society exists that allows you to make $100K and your neighbor $50K, then the services that create the situation where you can make 2x as much is actually worth 2x as much to you (in dollar terms). So to ask you to pay ~2x as much is not really that unreasonable.

A family with a $100K home gets less benefit in monetary terms compared to a family with a $1M home from something like police protection. Is it fair that they pay the same amount for police?

Besides, your flat dollar tax idea would never work. Not enough people make enough money to pay for even a remote amount of the cost of services provided by the various levels of govt.

Flat dollar rate is just as retarded as these wealth distribution socialist bastards whod rob anyone of every dollar they make. But a set percentage is what is needed, its what's actually fair.

You make 10k, he makes 100k, that guy makes 10M, you pay 2.5k, he pays 25k, that guy plays 2.5M. Everyone pays the same percent, causes the rich to always pay in more, as they make more, the poor to pay in less as they make less. Yet everyone contributes. People should have to contribute.

Fuck these kids wanting society to finance them sitting on their ass all day playing WoW. Which is exactly what will happen with wealth distribution because you'd only have to work hard enough to afford basic comforts since the Government guarantees you an easy life.

Well for the whole year it has the money for it, before everything collapses into anarchy.

[ptwonline]

Flat dollar rate is just as retarded as these wealth distribution socialist bastards whod rob anyone of every dollar they make. But a set percentage is what is needed, its what's actually fair.

You make 10k, he makes 100k, that guy makes 10M, you pay 2.5k, he pays 25k, that guy plays 2.5M. Everyone pays the same percent, causes the rich to always pay in more, as they make more, the poor to pay in less as they make less. Yet everyone contributes. People should have to contribute.

This is completely oversimplified and unrealistic. If you really implemented things like that you'd simply force lower incomes families to rely on gov't support more, and costs for everyone would go up. The next effect is that you haven't changed much except hurting the middle class more because they have to pay more in taxes and they don't get the additional benefits that the poor get. Only the wealthy really benefit.

[DEATHETERNAL]

I thought you quit these forums after calling the moderators Nazis?

OT: No, I do not support redistribution of wealth as it is nothing more than theft. It would also do a ridiculous amount of harm economically in America if we tried to do so (to the level the OP wishes) above and beyond it being purely wrong.

[Hyve]

No, I don't support it.

Whatever your situation, whatever the cause or issue, you're responsable for it, deal with the consequences. Very big generalisation, and there are of course some exceptions, but generally I speak about the adult masses.

If an elderly person has no money, then it is their own fault for being stupid enough to think a pension system was a good way to invest in their retirement.