Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
lets call it using some of the money of the rich in order to benefit society as a whole.


That is what we're calling it....stealing

Spell it out however you want, it all comes back to theft.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I´ll see if I vote for him or not. He might be the lesser evil and I and the country can endure leftist-policy for 4 years...but not more.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Well, in that case, I believe ALL the taxes (including sales tax) that I am already paying are theft as well. So, let's arrest the government that taxes us?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I also believe we could endure this, but do we really want to?

The real danger here is the unstoppable force of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and majorities in the house and senate for these leftists.

Think of how entrenched they could become with absolute power for 4 years. It may take many, many years to recover.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by nyk537
 


Well, in that case, I believe ALL the taxes (including sales tax) that I am already paying are theft as well. So, let's arrest the government that taxes us?




Explain? Where´s the logic here?

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



I wasn't being serious...I was going with his logic...Taxing the rich (i.e., redistribution) stealing...then so is taxing the middle class or the poor. No taxation w/o representation. Where's my representation? Not one single government, tax payer funded, program goes towards anything I want (hypothetically speaking), so why shouldn't I feel like the government is stealing from me?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


What I was trying to say that equality would mean taxing everyone the same. I did so because democrats try to pass off their tax-plans as "equality".

Whether or not tax is theft I´ll leave up to you to decide.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


But, if tax everyone the same w/o increasing taxes for the poor & middle class, do you believe that this country would get enough tax revenue to stay solvent?

Someone has to bare the burden, and it should be those that get the most out of out great country, not those that get the least; for the rich have much, much more to lose given the collapse of our government than the poor or middle class.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Alright then, going by your line of thinking, if taxing everyone is stealing, why is it suddenly OK to take money from people you deem to be "rich" and give it to people who haven't earned it?

To make them "equal"? I think not. Redistribution may make everyone equal, but not in the way most people think.

Redistribution will only end up making everyone "equally" poor.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


LOL, this is getting too funny! That was not my line of thinking. I was making a play off your previous post where you called it "stealing". Go back and reread it and see if it all makes sense.


Also, if we are all equally as poor; would we not also all be equally as rich? IMO, that's the way to go. If socioeconomic class was restructured, then crime would be almost nonexistent. Save for crimes of passion.

Just my 2-cents

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What I was trying to say that equality would mean taxing everyone the same.


I used to think this, too.
But a loaf of bread costs the same whether you make $18K a year or $1 Million a year. That loaf of bread is a lot larger percentage of the $18K salary than the $1 Million salary.

IF poorer people didn't have to pay as much for electricity, sales tax, food, water, gas, etc., then a flat tax would make sense. But since we're all paying the same price for the basic needs of life, then people who make a lot more should be paying a lot more.

It's good for the health of the country. And we should all be willing to put back into the country according to how successful we've been able to be here. Because the US is the land of opportunity, when a person works hard and that opportunity pays off, they should be willing to contribute to the health of the overall economy. If not, you have what we have now. A country where the top 1% of the people own more than the bottom 90%.

Who Owns America's Wealth?




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


If the %percentage% of tax paid is equal for poor, middle class and rich, the rich will be paying the most taxes anyway. In this way the "burden", as you put it, would be equally distributed.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Jill, Jim and Jack know that there is a demand for comic books in the neighbourhood.

Jill draws comics herself and makes 20 Dollars.
Jim sells his comics and makes 10 Dollars.
Jack only buys comics and is left with - 2 Dollars (thats a minus).

Benevolent Heretic says:

We´re taxing Jill with 5 Dollars
We´re taxing Jim with 2 Dollars
We´re taxing Jack with 1 Dollar

Jill thinks this is unfair and so she stops drawing comics. Jack runs out of comics to sell. Jack has no more comics to buy.

Welcome to socialism.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Sadly they just don't see it that way Skyfloating.

Wonderfully illustrated (no pun intended)



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


If the %percentage% of tax paid is equal for poor, middle class and rich, the rich will be paying the most taxes anyway. In this way the "burden", as you put it, would be equally distributed.



But would it be enough to run all the "necessary" government funded programs? We could easily save 10-billion a month by ending our occupation of Iraq; but even that "relief" would not make government affordable by having a flat tax, unless you greatly increased the taxes on the poor/middle class. The rich pay more for a reason.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Why is socialism, or a hybrid there of, such a horrible notion? Sweden seems to do pretty well. Nowhere in our constitution does it guarantee, or even mention, capitalism. So what makes some Americans feel entitled to it? This country was originally founded to get away from the taxing ways of the British; however, it didn't last long before we realized the error of our thinking. Now is the time to rethink the existing errors and correct them. Even if it means surrendering a little wealth. It's for the greater good.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I happen to live in a European Country which is practicing the things Democrats suggest. There are certainly benefits to this type of taxing.

But there are also dark sides...namely: Millions of people who dont deem it necessary to work (contribute to society), because the government is helping them out. Why should they work? There is no incentive. They have tax cuts, unemployment money, welfare...and so they spend the rest of their lives not working (seriously!) while I (I am self-employed) pay for their very early retirement.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Exactly!

For some reason though people think that won't happen in America. I find it to be quite the opposite, I think the amount of people who would stop working and rely on the government would be crippling.

America is a hard working country, but once you start offering incentives for doing nothing....

[edit on 28-10-2008 by nyk537]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Why is socialism, or a hybrid there of, such a horrible notion? Sweden seems to do pretty well. Nowhere in our constitution does it guarantee, or even mention, capitalism. So what makes some Americans feel entitled to it? This country was originally founded to get away from the taxing ways of the British; however, it didn't last long before we realized the error of our thinking. Now is the time to rethink the existing errors and correct them. Even if it means surrendering a little wealth. It's for the greater good.


Because giving someone something for nothing makes him weaker. and defies natural physics of energy-exchange.

And except for Sweden, where other factors are at work, socialism has produced this weakness in dozens of countries.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Can we all at least agree that we need taxes not only for our infrastructure but to somehow try to knock down our national debt? Interest alone is barely manageable on this huge amount. And God forbid if other countries like China, Saudia Arabia, Japan, etc. stop buying our T Bills,,,God forbid.







new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join