Redistribution of wealth.

All this talk about Obama's policies, Joe the Plumber, yadda yadda yadda. Got me thinking about redistribution of wealth. I'm dead set against it myself, being conservative, hard working, and reasonably wealthy. But what does everyone else think? Do you think the government should redistribute wealth, and from which groups to which groups?

For clarification:

Upper class = >$250,000 income per year.
Middle class = >$50,000 income per year.
Lower class = <$25,000 income per year.

It depends entirely on what is meant by "redistribution", in my case. Graduated tax brackets where the highest rate isn't onerous to the Bill Gates' of the world doesn't peg my Commie-meter.

On the political side, all revolutions have occurred due to wealth being reverse-redistributed to the few wealthy individuals (For anime, watch the Pumpkin Scissors series for a taste of how the tensions play out), and they've all been bloodbaths that were VERY BAD for the wealthy. Thus, I think paying a little more in taxes in return for social stability is not a thing for the wealthy to oppose with all their strength.

I'd prefer the high-wage skilled jobs we used to have to any cockamamie tax structure, since at least half the US population doesn't have the brain-type to make use of higher-education, and this is, I believe, the root cause of the evacuation of the middle class into higher or lower class brackets.

Of course these jobs were sent to penny-labor in third world countries, while the CEOs of these companies gave themselves huge bonuses from the money saved. This is just the sort of reverse-redistribution of Capitalism gone awry, that get's on people's nerves.

Side note: Man! Can I EVER post one of these politi-rants without coming back to edit it five or six times?

No redistribution.

I often wonder how much tax money is not collected because the upper class keep it in offshore accounts.Go ahead, tax away... you can't tax what you can't reach. Or not even off shore accounts... what about money that people simply don't claim they earned. Sure they crack down of a few people, but it's a small percentage. That why I'm for taxes on goods, services, property etc only. Forget income tax, it's so easy to avoid. Trying to collect income tax is a huge waste of time, money, and labour. Try avoiding paying tax on your property or you food, it's a lot tougher.

That was my super leet 3000th post. woo

Bubbles, you can't vote communist and not comment. Were you joking or what? I didn't expect anyone to actually pick it.

ThatHideousStrength too? C'mon people, I'm seriously curious what people think about this topic and why.

It's redistribution if money goes to the middle class and poor people but it's capitalism if it goes to the rich and large corporations?

You guys don't make sense!


Once again GoofusMaximus pretty much says what I'm thinking I don't know how he reads my mind but damn is he good!

If you want more .. work for it. If your not smart enough to get a better job, stop bitching and live up to your potential and call it a day.

I voted no re-distribution. I am not one of the intellectual elite's so I won't end up making 250+ a year....unless I win the PowerBall and make smart investments...which someone else will have to do for me....since I am an idiot.

But I wish that people like me had more breaks. I work two jobs making a 14 hour + work day for 5 days a week and then 6 hour days on BOTH Saturday and Sunday, and I lose time with my daughter because of it. I have no time for school since I am busting my ass trying to stay afloat right now. It's hard to explain I guess... I'd love a break - just not a freebie hand me down from someone making significantly more. Like my brother Pete.....he's making enough money to own 3 huge houses and isn't hurting for anything. I wouldn't want to take his money because he had the brain-power, skill, intestinal fortitude, (or what ever the hell it is) to get where he is. He just had a great break and ran with it. I would feel selfish if I said that he should give me some of his money because he can afford it.

I hope this made sense... but I bet I come of as more of an idiot.....

YouTube - Tim Robbins explains how this works

The Government has done quite enough already, thank you.

And I don't bitch about my situation.... I have been knocked down so many times that everything is now a struggle.... One day I might get out of it and be better off.... but for now I do the best I can until I can something better going... I'm not complacent as it were....I'm looking for the better thing all the time... just haven't been able to make it happen...in the mean time I struggle...allot...

Yeah, what the Ports and the trucking industry are doing doesn't help your situation, nevermind the rising cost of fuel, higher standards for emissions causing the owner operator not being able to compete with corporate contractors and banks not wanting to lend money to a guy who is looking to be an owner operator because even they see that it is a losing situation. The whole industry has gone to shit.

I think the problem with this type of thinking, which is all too common, is that people don't consider the services that those tax dollars would create and how those tax dollars can save a person more money in the long run.

Start from 1 simple premise:

You want to keep as much of your money as you can

People think that if you live in a place with a higher tax rate, not only do you have to pay the higher taxes, but you have to pay the normal costs associated with living (e.g. health care).

This thinking is patently false. The reasoning behind this is that people automatically assume the market can provide everything at a cheaper cost than it can be done publicly.

Take the example of health care. Let's use the example of Joe and Chris, both who have the same health problem.

Joe lives in the U.S. and makes $100 a week. $20 goto taxes and $20 goto his health care costs. Take away another $30 for other necessities, and Joe has $30 disposable income.

Now consider the case of Chris who lives in Canada. Chris makes $100 a week as well (the currencies are roughly equal). He pays $30 in taxes, but pays nothing for his health costs because of universal health care. Take away the same $30 for other necessities, and Joe has $40 disposable income.

Why the fuck does Chris, who pays higher taxes, have more at the end of the day?

The reality is Joe loses that extra $10 dollars because of the market. Chris's health care costs only as much as the treatment. Joe's health care costs as much as the treatment AND the profit margin of some corporation. Joe pays more because he's not just paying for the treatment of his disease, he's also paying some HMO company.

While this is an obviously simple example, it gets at the crux of the issue. The United States has astronomically high health care costs, especially when compared to socialized health care systems. Very small parts of this can be attributed to things such as expensive malpractice insurance, or that you're a very obese nation. But by far, the single biggest factor is that every time you pay for health care, you are lining the pockets of some HMO.

I know it can be difficult to break with the old convention wisdom that low taxes are good, redistribution bad, but with everything that is going on, do you all really think the market, as it is right now, best serves your interests?

I pay roughly $100 a month (w/o looking) for health insurance. That's a far cry from your 20% of the $100. People don't know how to manage money in the US because of stretching their income, that's the crux.

Low taxes= good
Socialism = europe, canada (we've seen the canadian navy so don't try to invade)

As Goofus pointed out, historically, the middle class has always carried the burden of paying the majority of taxes while the rich haven't paid as much or haven't paid at all. I believe it's unfair to make tons of money and not contribute anything back to society.

In a perfect world, government wouldn't be incompetent and, as a result, we wouldn't have lazy fuckers and illegal immigrants siphoning away our tax dollars.

As for those people that say charities could replace government welfare... look at what happened with insurance companies.

If low taxes = good
and
middle and lower class spend the majority of money in the US = good
and
The rich in general benefit from the purchasing done by the middle and lower class = good

Then why the hell would you NOT give a bigger tax break to the middle and lower class?



Since I know a majority of the people here have stated that they look out for number 1 (themselves, and I have no problem with that) and I know damn well that none of you make more than 250k a year, then why would you side with McCains tax plan if you would benefit more from Obamas?

Where did I say anything about tax breaks? All I said, and you quoted, was low taxes are good. That keeps money in the pockets of consumers who drive the economy.

Work harder.....................that's about the funniest thing I've heard all week.
i'm not even voting in this 'gotcha" pole. non of the sollutions are going to work that are listed. the sollution that is going to work the best is to get all lobying out of politics, one person, one vote, not one dollar one vote/one billion dollars one billion votes. If regulations were enforced and things were as equitable as the laws says they should be...........................there'd be no problem. So how about editing in the option of
enforcing the regulations on the books that creates a win+win for the middle and upper class? You know do away with the gold rule? i worked my ass off for alot of years, only to watch it all collapse due to mucky-mucks greed for quick super profits. maybe next time it'll be some other industry collapse that touches you guy's houses next time.
but just for a bit of a N.I.G.Y.S.O.B. I'm voting for a total redistribution of wealth. if they can't prove they earned it totally legally, they shouldn't be allowed to keep any of it. But, I guess, crime really does pay, and pay well.

This is true. There are alot of people who bust their asses just only to make it by if that. You might say, "so get a better job" right? Well someone has to do THAT JOB. If not them someone else and we're back at square one. If they already bust their asses for their measly wage and put in masses of overtime as is, "Working harder," isn't a fair thing to ask of these people is it.

At the same time I don't agree with "redistributing wealth". There are other ways of going about this.

Exactly.

The upper class got the tax breaks and now the middle and lower will receive theirs. Just like the upper class tax breaks, I HIGHLY doubt it will be permanent.

As opposed to this collapse?

I'm guessing NIGYSOB is Nigga I Got Yo Stable o' Bitches?


Edit: While I'm at it - How much can I get for one rib? 10 cool points for the first, non-googled, answer.

Edit 2: I suck at acryonyms. fuck it

Edit 3: I'm buzzed yay

You are right we aren't a socialist nation nor are we a capitalistic nation, nor are we a democratic nation! We are not a nation of extremes, we are a nation of gray, not black and white. We have capitalistic tendencies, we have democratic tendencies, and we have socialistic tendencies we take what works from other systems and make them our own.

And if we didn't have those tendencies then we wouldn't be where we are now. Monopolies don't exist any more, blacks and women now have the right to vote, and education is provided to all.

Like you said though jub, Obama is not trying to turn this nation into a socialist nation and anyone who thinks so is retarded. His tendencies might be similar to soscialist programs but that doesn't mean his goal is socialism.

I think without a doubt our nation should have a safety net for the poor and disadvantaged. That takes tax dollars to do for sure, but a more intelligent system than what we have now could save us money in the long run. I don't know how you are defining "redistribution of wealth" so I can't really answer that question.

Redistribution of Wealth, and Socialism are both buzzwords raised by the Republican e-mail gossip/talking-points blitz. Having a Republican who sends us business e-mails, we also get all this stuff landing in our inboxes all the time.

From the late 1940's till the oil embargo and stagflation of the '70s, we had a command economy where Capitalism was regulated with a light but firm hand, and it gave us the longest period of prosperity we've ever had. According to some, this period would be considered "Socialist". In fact most of our allies against Communism were Socialist Democracies, and they've not been doing any worse than we are economy-wise, and their basic health care is boatloads better than ours. American Expatriots who were afraid of the European health care, because of all the horror stories they heard in the US, have all been extremely pleasantly surprised at how well it worked for them when they needed it. We couldn't GIVE the Europeans the US health-care system at the point of a gun!

And if we did, it would be an act of war. Ditto for our education system.