Why not wealth redistribution?

Distinction without a difference.

 

I'm pretty sure that the tax base of the stock is readjusted to the value of when the beneficiary receives it. So they will only pay capital gains on any gains after they acquire it.

The $9000 gain is never taxed, unless the estate value is high enough to trigger estate tax laws. In the $5-10 million range now, I believe.

I think what he means is that your beneficiary didn't earn the money and have not paid taxes on it.

So what? If I agree to paint a guy's house, he pays me money that has already been taxed. But I still have to pay a tax on that money when I get it.

The "money's already been taxed" argument is a non sequitur. All money has "already been taxed".

 

I don't need an income build wealth. I think that might be an important conversation point. It's not a zero some game, my wealth can grow with income, but I can grow it by adding value myself. And frankly that's the more important piece of the puzzle.

I could write a song, cook a meal, tend a garden, manage a process, paint a painting, discover a relationship, understand an illness, design a process, craft a circuit, start a fire, solve anyone of a million puzzles or problems -- each of which produces value and increases my wealth without any associated income. It's not a zero sum game. You don't have to loose value for me to gain it.

And just because one many traded more value for IOU's (dollars) than the next, isn't proof he did anything wrong. It only demonstrates he provided more value that people wanted.





​

 

No, there are clear differences. Dollars have trade value, percentages don't. Dollars are literally how my work is valued. The government got more value from me this year, than last. The price went up.





​

 

The dollars you pay is a percentage of your income.

Distinction without a difference.

 

Sorry, but, I fully believe all money is imaginary and the oinly value on it is the value we place.

It's just that people like the shiny, and gold and precious gems and minerals are the shiny.

 

Same is true of inches. But the things we measure with either are real.





​

 

Can you buy more steel with 50% of Steve's income or 30% of Bill's? The difference between dollars and percentages is one measures trade value and the other doesn't.





​

 

This is only partially true.

 

Typical Leftist train of thought...corporate greed....the oppressed poor.

I'm a Captialist, not a Socialist. My problem with income redistribution done at the federal and state levels is that it leads to a whole underclass of dependancy that is unsustainable. If every millionare was taxed at 100% of their income, there still wouldn't be enough money to pay off the debt, let alone, run the country at current levels.

Why should a typical lazy teenage girl, already living under the welfare entitlement system, finish high school, get married and have children once they can afford them?

Why not? Because as any fool knows she can get pregnant with a Sperm Father, and recieve about $40,000 a year in free government benefits: Section 8 housing, Medicaid for her and her kids, Food Stamps, Welfare payments, and all the rest.

Comrade, even your greatest leader Lenin said, "No work, no eat."
It's as if you enjoy fraud, idleness and anarchy.

 

Good point. The money you make, unless you are represented by a union, is a function of what the market currently values for your labor, based on supply and demand.

You might add 90% of the value of a product or service, but if your market value is MW because of either low demand or high supply, you make MW. The employer reaps extra profits in this scenario. Which is why we are seeing record business profits while wage income has been stagnant. There is a surplus of workers and they're getting low pay and businesses and reaping the benefits.

Unions, for all their negatives, alter the balance and thus can leverage what people get paid closer to the value they provide. Which is why business owners hate them. They get a better deal for the workers at the expense of the business owner's greater profits.

Which is why, IMO, it's not a coincidence that the share of the nation's income that middle class gets has fallen along side the power of unions in our economy.

 

I don't think that is true. The average income of the 1% is over $1 million. They get about 20% of the nation's income. Gross national income is about $14 trillion, so they are raking in about $2.8 trillion as a group.

Thanks more than enough to close the deficit and start paying down the debt.

Proof please. If any fool know it it should be easy for you to support your claim with reliable sources.

 

Then quit and either go into competition with your employer or become a vendor. But if you can't, consider being honest about the value of your contribution. An ox or the wind might provide more labor than a miller, but an ox doesn't make flour.




​

 

There is a lack of spending and demand in the economy.

Nor can the miller without the ox. But despite the fact of the ox's necessary contribution, it gets paid ox feed.





[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

 

Sure he can. The miller could buy a horse, turn the millstone himself, or erect a wind mill. And if the ox demanded enough feed or free health care, the miller would do without him.

That's the problem with contributing only labor and why labor is valued so low — your labor is not necessary to the process.



​

 

Here's the first part, of course the national debt is what now, 16 trillion? Economic collaspe is inescapable.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ays-100-percent-tax-millionaires-would-only-/

On the second part, as anyone in the hood can tell you:

A new study by the CATO Institute, a public policy think tank, found that some welfare recipients make more “income” than those in the private sector.

A mother with two children in New York, for instance, is able to collect $38,004 per year in welfare handouts. This is greater than the starting salary of a teacher in the state.

And the problem is not limited to New York. CATO found that many states give handouts with sums greater than what workers earn in the private sector. According to the study, Hawaii is generally the most generous with benefits — there, a mother of two is eligible to earn $60,590

http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more-than-teachers/

Do you think for one second that a lazy welfare queen is going give that up to get married and get job?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me that the service industry needs to either unionize hard or continue to pressure increases in minimum wage. Until the jobs we have pay better then welfare we will have people choosing welfare, and I'm not going to blame the lack of good paying jobs on poor people.

 

This has nothing to do with appreciation or depreciation but instead it deals with profit/loss on investments and it specifically dealt with the false statement that inheritance reflected previously taxed income which is generally false and that the "heir" never paid a dime of tax on to begin with.

When "social-conservatives" discuss enterprise, investments, taxation, and poverty it is amazing how little they often seem to know about these subjects.

 

Assuming the RW Cato study is accurate, I agree that is too generous. It appears to be comparing apples to oranges however, in that it ignores public assistant that people working still receive.

But the point is irrelevant when you don't have enough jobs for people who want to work, by a factor of three to one. People aren't working because they don't want to work. We didn't lose 9 million jobs because people all of a sudden decided to go on welfare. That is simply a laughable fantasy.

 

It's a silly analogy, but the point is correct. Wages for middle class are suppressed because there is isn't much demand for for products and services requiring more workers.

And that is good measure is because our "trickle down" policies have redistributed such a much larger portion of the nation's income to people who proportionately don't spend it.

To increase wages we need to either reduce the supply available to the employer or increase the demand for workers.

 

The problem is "self-inflicted"; how many states actually enforce their at-will employment laws regarding unemployment compensation. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective and market friendly and could clear our poverty guidelines.

- - - Updated - - -

Adding value and earning money is a form of income. It is a requirement in any Institution of money based markets.

 

The loss of jobs in America has to do mainly with too many laws and rules that has killed off manufacturing. This runs from the obsolete Minimum Wage

Act, Obama Care, unfair labor laws (look at how New York state suffers), EPA harrassment and so on. Why not move manufacturing offshore to China and India?

The welfare/entitlement/underclass does not want to work becuase their handouts are so awesome, there is no need to work.

This is also why Hispanic/Asian illegal aliens are flooding in. Most want freebies or illegal, untaxed work. Now we are a nation of bums.

I've never seen a workaholic that can work, not work. Bums and freeloaders that have had their $20/hr union jobs, or office jobs lost will not work. Honest people will work at any job, no matter how low, or tough, or low paying to save face.

 

Sure. Laws and minimum caused the Great Recession. Let me guess, it was all Clinton's fault too?

Obamacare wasn't even a bill when the Great Recession started.

Right. 8.7 million people didn't lose their jobs because of the Great Recession. They just all decided to get lazy and go for those "awesome" welfare benes at the same time.

Conservatives make sense. If you ignore reality.

 

You're not a worker, if no one want's the work you do. The problem isn't because someone suppressed their wages or didn't trickle on them, the problem is what many of us do is no more important than what the ox was doing when windmills came to town.

If you want to help those people, don't focus on wages they aren't earning — consider the work. As long as people want something, there is demand. And we have a lot of demand these days. Folks just need to find new ways to step up and meet that demand so they can collect 100% of the profit direct from each other for doing it. Or collect less if they want to partner with their brother or friend.

Yes, they'll have to do more than just show up at an office, shop, or farm and do what they're told. They'll have to own a problem and provide a solution. But the alternative to owning your work is to be unemployed. This country told employers either they had to give free health care, luxurious pensions, and high wages to unskilled employees or do without them. We opted for the latter and progress rarely runs backwards.

But robotic ovens, ice makers, off shore factories, ebooks, driver-less delivery trucks, mail order stores, 3D-printing, video blogs, bio-fabrication, iRobot lawn mowers, and all the other options that are increasingly replacing unskilled workers are not a bad thing. They are allowing a few people to do the work of hundreds. They're making us more productive. Those same options mean folks who complained for years that they could run the business their bosses did if only they had a factory or staff of 100 — now have it.




​