Why not wealth redistribution?

there has been wealth redistribution since the very first income tax and inheritance tax laws were passed. Acting as if this is some new leftist assault is sort of silly.

 

nothing new but left unchecked it will devourer the economy of any nation

 

it is always "checked" by the political process.

 

when the takers out number the makers it is the point of no return because the takers will always vote for more to be taken from the makers

 

I disagree. Congress does not really work that way.

 

If you make a gazillion dallars you should be thankful to yourself for making it.

If you find that huge source of oil and sell it for industries and cars then other people are already benefiting indirectly from your profit and wealth.

The industries which use it employ many people and cause others to be employed such as sales. The people who put it in their cars purchased their cars from people who have factories and who employ people. The gas station needs pumps and tanks and regular refills from trucks. All of whom employ people.

What truly defends all of this is that everyone is engaging in free trade and trading value for value and no one in this trade is suffering as a result of you being at the top of it all and amassing wealth in fact they are benefiting from it.

Success should be unlimited and yes that includes wealth. It is no different than allowing people to achieve limitless knowledge if they can and work to do so. Or limitless strength through body building or what have you. The wealth which you hate is what certian people have worked to achieve and no human should be limited based on the envy and hatred of others for their success.

The bible you quote is irrelevant. But it is interesting you selectively pick the part which condemns wealth while you ignore the parts about coveting what others have.

- - - Updated - - -

If you make a gazillion dallars you should be thankful to yourself for making it.

If you find that huge source of oil and sell it for industries and cars then other people are already benefiting indirectly from your profit and wealth.

The industries which use it employ many people and cause others to be employed such as sales. The people who put it in their cars purchased their cars from people who have factories and who employ people. The gas station needs pumps and tanks and regular refills from trucks. All of whom employ people.

What truly defends all of this is that everyone is engaging in free trade and trading value for value and no one in this trade is suffering as a result of you being at the top of it all and amassing wealth in fact they are benefiting from it.

Success should be unlimited and yes that includes wealth. It is no different than allowing people to achieve limitless knowledge if they can and work to do so. Or limitless strength through body building or what have you. The wealth which you hate is what certian people have worked to achieve and no human should be limited based on the envy and hatred of others for their success.

The bible you quote is irrelevant. But it is interesting you selectively pick the part which condemns wealth while you ignore the parts about coveting what others have.

- - - Updated - - -

It never has been.

No one voted for a candidate who proposed more taxes. In fact no candidate runs on a platform of " I will create and raise new taxes".

Taxes were imposed on the voters and people not chosen by them and taxes are theft.

Yes it is an old idea but not a valid idea.

 

That's what nazis thought too, we are powerful and there should be no limit to that power. Even in sports, people take performance enhancing drugs in a rat race, ruining their health for the sake of more success and more money. Don' you see the flaw in your argument?

 

not exactly a student of history, are you?

Walter Mondale announced that he would indeed raise taxes and 37 million people voted for him.

 

it is when they want to get elected or reelected

 

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Nikoli Tesla a workaholic who created and invented more in his life that is still utilized to this day, than any other human being in history, and did it to leave the world a better place than when he found it, died flat broke.


Incentive is a great thing, people need a reason to get up every morning, but our problem today stems from a corrupt government (both parties) that is bought and paid for and a system based on cronyism capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all. What that allows for or actually creates is more adversity not less.

What we lack is stability within our communities the way it had been at times in the past. Not that everything was all satin and roses, but the majority was doing well or better than a very small minority at the bottom rung. These days there is no competition, no competitive edge across the board to keep costs down and rewards plentiful. Why? Because unrealistic profits, billion dollar portfolios, and the richest rich/elites on the planet are not created that way.

Winning and losing is just part of life but constant tampering/meddling/manipulating, to isolate success for a chosen few is not a competitive environment, it is stacking the deck and a guaranteed windfall. It's cheating.

While the two parties continue to keep the peasants disgruntled with one another and pointing the finger of blame every where but towards the actual culprits of deceit, things will continue to get worse. As long as 'our' so-called government continues to allow the financing of communism and turn their heads to the major corporations propping up totalitarian dictators to create an unrealistic profit margin that is flowing in to reward the selective few, wealth will continue to float to the top just like cream in a bucket of milk.

As long as your elected officials blatantly ignore their oaths, and cater to the highest bidder, any and all wealth distribution/welfare/subsidies/handouts, whatever you want to call it will never settle or create wealth any where near the bottom of the economic scale, and within a short period of time of it's actual distribution will continue to do as it has always been designed to do, rise to the top.

Just keep on allowing the two parties pull the wool over the sheeples eyes to maintain the statuesque, and this nation will continue to spiral into financial failure, as the selective few maintain an existence in their gated communities, and secluded island hideaways.

 

Exactly. Nobody likes to admit they're on the government dole. Especially the proud and so-called self made rich.

 

Agreed. Govt and the ability for them to be financially influenced has to be nipped in the bud. Nothing should influence a politician besides our votes. Not a dime in or out. Personal gain and their ability to use their position to help specific people should be met with instant jail time and removal of all benefits gained in their time of service. Politicians don't understand what the point of their job is anymore.

 

Because frankly, redistribution is the masses trying to re-write the apparent 'rules' for how we conduct business for their own benefit. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" mentality. Rich person sells you something, you give him your money willingly and then turn right back around (via politicians you elect) and take that money back and use it on something else you think the money would be better spent on. Basically, people who become rich selling things to people should basically work partially for free so we can spend the money we would have paid you on other things, is what you're saying. Which is not how things are supposed to work - people aren't supposed to have to work for free, they are supposed to be compensated - a product of labour in exchange for a quantity of currency.

 

No there is no flaw.

My argument had nothing to do with forcing others which is what power is all about. Amassing wealth harms no one.

- - - Updated - - -

He lost.

 

So what? You made an incorrect statement and I merely pointed it out to you. Be a nice boy and just admit you screwed up.

 

No not really he lost and lost big time.

Much as your history lesson was defeated.

 

no. really. 37 million people are not "nobody". You're wrong, but obviously too bull headed to admit it. I got it.

 

I'm right and you know it.

You tried to pick one of the most lame political losers as an example.

He was crushed but go on deluding yourself it's amusing

 

Actually it's BS. The vast majority of enterpises in the United States that overwhelmingly create most of the jobs were not started by rich people. Even when we look at many of the major corporations today they were not started by "rich" people. Microsoft was started by Bill Gates and Paul Allen that were barely able to rud two dimes together. Harley-Davidson was started by William S. Harley and Arthur Davidson in a small machine shop. The Boeing Corporation was a small airplane company. McDonalds stated out as a single hamburger stand.

Yes, along the way each of these enterprises went "public" but they were all successful small enterprises before going public because they sold their products. They didn't require "wealthy" investors to succeed and they certainly didn't come into existance based upon "rich people" but they did take advantage of the wealth of others to expand their enterprises. Because they were "successful enteprises" they could have grown without outside investment capital but not as rapidly as they did with the influx of outside capital.

They were successful because they "sold their products" and not because of wealthy investors.

 

Ok. They became rich and keep giving jobs to people through their companies. The disproportion between average wage and the billions the higher chiefs gain remains still. Unless you need money to further invest in the businness or in research then i don't see why a man should keep billions of dollars in his pockets just for the sake of it. Do something with that money if you don't need it. Give it to medical research, to civilian technology research, to aid association. Create yourself an association and lead it to do something good with your spare time, or delegate it to someone trustful if you don't have enough time.

 

In looking at this from a broad perspective that addresses everyone I've reached a conclusion on what level of taxation is "acceptable" and what is "not acceptable" regardless of income and regardless of the form of taxation (all taxes reduce the disposable income of the person) needs to be based upon "standard of living" of the person. .

Taxation should not reduce the "standard of living" of the person and there should be something left over so that they can improve their standard of living in the future.

Based upon what I've read about 50% of American households are living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over to improve their lifestyle. They are being over-taxed based upon local, state, and federal taxation that reduces their disposable income.

When we address the upper 50% the disposable income for some is only slightly more than it costs for them to live while for others at the very top their disposable income can often be many times what even their lavish lifestyles require. For example a person with $100 million/yr in income probably doesn't spend more than a ten million dollars on actual living expenses.

Think of it this way, it's hard to spend $10 million a year because the person has to average over $27,000/day in spending and that is very hard to do on a day after day after day basis. Yes, they could rent a Lear Jet to fly to Aspen CO and that could cost them about $27,000 but they're not going to rent a Lear Jet every day of the year. A person can only drive one car at a time and they can only live in one multi-million dollar mansion at a time.and they can rent or lease both if they want to. They don't actually have to own them as that relates to "assets" and not "lifestyle" of the person.

My simple proposal is that no one below "median household income" should be taxed at all and everyone above that amount should be taxed from very little to a lot based upon where they fall economically above that 50% median level. My simple proposal is exempt income from federal taxation up to the median income using the income tax and use a consumption (sales) tax at the state level where a "prebate" off-sets the tax up to median household income. Elimiante all other forms of "taxation" except for "user fees" like the fuel tax and postage stamps.

This doesn't involve ANY wealth redistribution as the "exemption" only addresses what the person "earns" and the "prebate" only addresses what the person would "spend" related to taxation.

 

This is a good point, not because I agree with your position, but because just manipulating capitalism seems to me to be wholly inadequate if you think it got its allocation of resource and power relations wrong. Either the man who puts a resource into production has claim to that resource or he doesn't, just deciding to split the difference and take some of that man's stuff, but preserve the system itself - seems really inconsistent.

Come up with some way of allocating resources and stick with it from the beginning. None of these corrective measures necessary.

 

take a math lesson or two and get back to me, loser.