About Wealth and Income Redistribution

[Rukentuts]

Redistribution is better for the economy, it means more consumption.

[Templar 331]

No, no it doesn't. Seriously, stop listening to politically influenced people who don't know anything about the subject, stop listening to idealists, just look at facts. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't even encourage a better society.

Facts? Well by all means, show us these "facts" that show we shouldn't tax the top higher. Show us the proof that it is a bad idea. If you can't, that just makes you the idealist.

[Rukentuts]

Show us the proof that it is a bad idea.

Because the 1990s were terrible.

[Templar 331]

Because the 1990s were terrible.

I was going to go for the 40s-50s where the tax rates where higher on the top.

[Deleted]

Redistribution is better for the economy, it means more consumption.

You're seriously arguing that high and progressive taxes leads to more consumption? It leads to less since you're giving more money to the state. It also makes you a lot less likely to give to charity.

[Rukentuts]

You're seriously arguing that high and progressive taxes leads to more consumption? It leads to less since you're giving more money to the state. It also makes you a lot less likely to give to charity.

I said redistribution leads to more consumption.

And 69% of "charitable" givings directly benefit the rich. So boo fucking hoo.

[Hraklea]

Redistribution is better for the economy, it means more consumption.

Wouldn't it reduce production too?

[Deleted]

And 69% of "charitable" givings directly benefit the rich. So boo fucking hoo.

Where do you get this number and please explain.

[Jackmoves]

The whole system is relying on consumption by the masses. Over consumption even, since a lot of people are indebted. They spend too much.

[Rukentuts]

Where do you get this number and please explain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-go-the-poor/

Only 31% of charity actually helps the poor. So people need to stop with charity bullshit. Giving to your son's academy isn't "charity".

Wouldn't it reduce production too?

No.

1990s proved this.

[Raphtheone]

And also for those saying that workers aren't payed enough or should somehow share in the profit... I take it you have no problem with them also sharing losses even if it means they go for long periods with nothing but debt? Right? Didn't think so.

I thought that when the companies make money, the execs and owners pocket the money, while if the company is making losses the employed get fired due to natural cutbacks. So they already share in the losses?

[Cthulhu 2020]

You're seriously arguing that high and progressive taxes leads to more consumption? It leads to less since you're giving more money to the state. It also makes you a lot less likely to give to charity.

You do realize that the state spends money on contractors, employee wages, welfare, medicare (that ends up in the hands of doctors and hospitals etc)?

You seem to think money is a one way street. That is why you don't know what you're talking about. That's why all your theories are wrong. That's why conservatives are constantly seen as not knowing wtf they're talking about.

Money that goes to the state doesn't just suddenly disappear. It is distributed throughout the economy. That money either goes DIRECTLY back into the hands of businesses or it ends up in the hands of consumers which then goes back into the hands of businesses. We are in a recession because people aren't buying anything.

Jobs aren't just magically created by giving businesses and wealthy more money. That's where it ultimately ends up! That's the end of the money loop, not the beginning. Without taxes and redistribution, that money stays there. There is no incentive to spend money on jobs unless they know those jobs will make money. Those jobs will only make money if there are consumers with money to spend on their goods and services. When consumers don't have money, they don't spend, there is no job creation, the economy stagnates, people lose their jobs, and the wealth accumulates at the top.

This has happened throughout history over and over, and extreme wealth accumulation leads to revolution in every case. If you want to prevent a communist state, the best way is to let socialism happen, not fight it.

[Deleted]

Only that's not exactly what you said. You said that "69% of "charitable" givings directly benefit the rich."

How? You're seriously telling me that, from a pure, direct self-interest, you would rather give 100k away than keep that 100k and be taxed on it for some amount? How does that directly benefit you apart from maybe having a public image as a very charitable person?

[Rukentuts]

You said that "69% of "charitable" givings directly benefit the rich."

"All non-poor giving"

Read the graph before posting. It means it is benefiting the rich. It even spells out the explicit charitable benefits of the other 31%.

[Deleted]

I thought that when the companies make money, the execs and owners pocket the money, while if the company is making losses the employed get fired due to natural cutbacks. So they already share in the losses?

Because you're confusing the meaning of words here.

If your company has revenue of 50 million and costs of 100 million, that's a 50 million LOSS. Some employees might get laid off as a result, but they don't have to pay a cent of that loss, i.e. they don't share in the loss.

[Hraklea]

No.

1990s proved this.

Actually, it didn't. Having a big production during a welfare age doesn't prove that you'd not have a bigger production in a laissez-faire age in the same economic conjucture.

[Rukentuts]

Actually, it didn't. Having a big production during a welfare age doesn't prove that you'd not have a bigger production in a laissez-faire age in the same economic conjucture.

Except you don't produce without demand, and demand is what is spurred by consumption.

Why the fuck would you produce 10000 widgets to just park them in a warehouse? You want to sell them.

[Deleted]

"All non-poor giving"

Read the graph before posting. It means it is benefiting the rich. It even spells out the explicit charitable benefits of the other 31%.

So non-poor = rich? LOL Are you kidding me?

[Rukentuts]

So non-poor = rich? LOL Are you kidding me?

Did you read the article?

That's why the CBO found that $33 billion of the $39 billion deduction went to the top quintile, and that the top one percent gets more out of it than any other group, as a share of income.

Next you'll argue the top quintile isn't rich.

[Cthulhu 2020]

69% of charitable donations go to things like operas, art museums, theaters, stadiums, and various other "non profits" that qualify for non profit charitable status, that in no way benefit the poor, and more often than not only benefit the wealthy.

Not that I'm against the arts receiving charitable funding, but let's stop pretending that they overwhelmingly help the poor with charity.