Why not wealth redistribution?

The left always wants more.. they will tax it coming & going.. earned or won.. lost or found.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me

The only solution, as i see it, is to forcibly take control of the govt.. we cannot let statists & aggressive dictator wannabes run things. They will inevitably try to control & manipulate everything & everyone. They don't really care about the poor.. they are just a tool for their elections. They promise them goodies from the treasure, & dribble out a few scraps for votes. But they bankrupt the nation by making a magnet for dependency. So all this 'wealth redistribution' does is make con men & charlatans rich.. they don't want to work or earn money the old fashioned way, they just want to take it from someone else.

Let those who earn the money & actually produce something, enjoy the fruits of their labors, instead of rewarding money shuffling scoundrels & leeches who only want to live off the labors of others.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." ~Frederic Bastiat

 

That productivity plummeted after prohibition ended? The great depression happened. You need a source for that? I think you're either misreading my words or not reading them at all.



​

 

You have to prove it was the end of prohibition that caused it and not some other factor. Why do you believe increasing a form of Commerce would lead to a depression?

 

It's unreasonable to suggest a man that who pays $100,000 in taxes is favored over a man who pays nothing for exactly the same rights and privileges.





​

 

Yes, but only under our form of Socialism but not our form of Capitalism.

 

No I don't. If you want to claim that, you can prove it.




​

 

Increasing commerce doesn't cause depressions.

 

If there had been a net increase, there wouldn't have been a depression. By definition.




​

 

The Great Depression in the us lasted from 1929-1939 (roughly)
Prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933.

What about the 4 years from 1929-1933?

Actual causes
Debt liquidation and distress selling
Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
A fall in the level of asset prices
A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
A fall in profits
A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
Pessimism and loss of confidence
Hoarding of money
A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates
a tightening of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve doubled reserve requirements between August 1936 and May 1937 leading to a contraction in the money supply.-via Wikipedia

 

Thread: Why not wealth redistribution?

What are you qualifying as wealth? How much of my wealth? Where is it going to go? Do I get a say? Should I end my charitable donations to the dozen or so charities that depend on me?

And those rock star peoplz... they don't get a penny from me.

 

Thus, it couldn't have been due to Commerce, well regulated. Simply because Commerce doesn't cause depressions. We may distinguish between speculation and Commerce even if a form of Commerce is involved in speculation in any Institution of money based markets such as ours.

- - - Updated - - -

We merely need solve simple poverty to lower our tax burden.

 

There is nothing, other than politics, and some self-serving greed, which can make 'wealth distribution' sound like a good thing.

The scenario reads like this; I failed and have no wealth, but the other guy found success and wealth, therefore...it's only fair for that other guy to help pay my way. I sleep soundly at night knowing that I can take from the hard work of others. And if they refuse to share their wealth, we will find a president and Congress who supports our position because as our numbers grow we achieve power. What is in the best interest of the USA can never trump what is in the best interest of me...me...me...

 

That sounds easy enough. Can we do that by counting TV's in homes around the world? I assume those without a TV would be the baseline of poverty.

 

Our elected representatives are already delegated the power to fix Standards. We already have poverty guidelines for the US.

 

Which we already know are far above most of the rest of the planet.

 

Because poverty is relative when corporate welfare pays multimillion dollar bonuses without even a drug test.

 

So that's your agenda, you don't like it because privately held companies don't give you a hand out... without even a drug test.

 

I think Article 4, Section 2 pretty much covers it.

You aren't complaining about the wealthiest on means tested corporate welfare; so, why complain only about the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism regardless of our form of Socialism.

 

\



But see, that isnt really what happened.


Capitalists now control government. They now use it as a tool to specifically craft policy that is beneficial to them, and them alone. The Rich have bought and paid for this government, and this government does THEIR bidding. Not anyone elses.


The rich have looted the pockets of the poor NOT through "trade" as you call it. But by passing laws that only benefit them. Such as the capitals gains taxes being so low. Rich people have almost never had a lower tax rate in America than they do now. Historically, they have been taxed at a much higher rate.

- - - Updated - - -

I call Poe on this one. The only thing I will say is that this country is built on the backs of the middle class. Not the rich. The middle class economic power is the main engine to any good economy.

 

Only alleged Capitalists refuse to make more money with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

Historically we had policies that were unfair to blacks. That we did bad things in the past, doesn't mean they ever were fair. People in America who happen to be wealthy have never paid more taxes than they do now — whatever percentage that is of their income, their height, their age or some other arbitrary statistic you dream up doesn't make it fair. When one guy pays $100,000 in taxes for the same rights and privileges another is getting for free, it's absurd to suggest the first guy is being favored by tax law.

The rich have paid for our government, our tax laws dump almost all the burden of paying our collective debts in the lap of about 6% of this nation. But to suggest it's doing their bidding is silly. We have a socialist in the white house and a congress that has passed the single most expensive entitlement in our history at the request of the least wealthy in this country. If the wealthy bought this country, they sure as heck aren't getting their money's worth.



​

 

Not even close to accurate.​

 

Take the wealth from the 1 percent that pay 90 percent of taxes....and give it to the poor who pay less than one percent .....and who will be back on the government payroll in no time. Anything band-aid will quickly fail. It's not that simple.

 

Not if we simply correct for the phenomena of a "natural rate of unemployment" as a form of inefficiency in the market for labor. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.

 

The beneficiaries to an estate have no vested interest in the assets and have never paid one dime of tax on the estate. You can't even claim the assets have ever been taxed at all because not all assets have been taxed.

For example a person purchases 1000 share of stock for $1000 and then 20 years later that person dies. During that 20 years the stock has increased in value to $10,000 but not a single dollar of that $9,000 in increased value has ever been taxed.