Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

reply to post by nyk537


but, oh ya, we deserve the crappy treatment we are getting now, from bush, the fed, and the treasury!!

who do you think is gonna pay the price for your stock bailout, the bank bailout, the car manufacturers bailout. those lovely bonuses that will be going to the same ones who put us in this mess?? every one of us, including the poor, in the way of higher prices for everything!
maybe if the republicans would quite working so hard to redistribute the wealth upwards, there would be no need to redistribute it downward?

and...I got news for ya nyk537....
if you think I am pictching in to help pay for thier lovely hundreds of thousand dollars in bonuses, your nuts!!

that's a bigger incentive not to work, at least in this country than anything the dems could do...






[edit on 28-10-2008 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Kellter
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.

I dont mind paying taxes.

And the national debt is due to the poor financial wisdom of our government and its forefathers. Ample evidence that none of them have a clue of what they´re doing. Not to mention an entire nation enslaved by credit-card debt.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Unfortunately, you (or we) pay for that retirement one way or another. If you don't give it to those people, then they will just steal it. Laziness is inherent while being criminal is not. Laziness has no victims while criminal activity can carry grave consequences. I know it's not fair or just; however, it is for the greater good of society as a whole.

reply to post by dawnstar


Who´s saying Bush did good politics? Nobody so far in this thread.

But solving our financial crisis with "redistribution of wealth" is like curing a headache by shooting yourself in the head.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Unfortunately, you (or we) pay for that retirement one way or another. If you don't give it to those people, then they will just steal it. Laziness is inherent while being criminal is not. Laziness has no victims while criminal activity can carry grave consequences. I know it's not fair or just; however, it is for the greater good of society as a whole.

Id prefer deciding myself who I donate and give money too rather than having the government decide.

In fact, Im not entirely comfortable with us having no say whatsoever where are tax money is going to (but thats another topic).

Making the poor weaker by giving them money and making the rich weaker by stealing their money is not for the greater good of society, imo.

Visit socialist countries and check it out for yourself.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by dawnstar

 

Who´s saying Bush did good politics? Nobody so far in this thread.

But solving our financial crisis with "redistribution of wealth" is like curing a headache by shooting yourself in the head.

BUT, that would without a doubt rid that headache for good . Except, the poor would feed that money right back into the pockets of the rich by purchasing...you see, it stimulates the economy!

reply to post by Aggie Man


Look...my huge preference would be for the middle-class to be strengthened. Neither the poor, nor the rich, but the middle-class. I think society needs them to "hold things together".

reply to post by Skyfloating


I wish they would.

Part of me almost hopes Obama does win and begins "spreading the wealth" so these people can see what fools they were.

Unfortunately, I also think the nanny state that would create could be too big a hole for us to ever climb out of.

I just don't understand how people can think this is a good idea.

Originally posted by Kellter
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?

And that is exactly why we need to do this now. Under "normal" circumstances, I wouldn't support this redistribution of wealth like I am now.

We have to consider what's been happening in this country for the past 10 years. If we were starting out fresh, I would be much more for "every man for himself". But the wealth HAS been redistributed to the wealthy for many years and it's all bunched up at the top. It's a MESS and our society CANNOT function as it is - The center cannot hold! As demonstrated by the serious economic crisis we're facing.

Corporation CEOs and other executives are raking in the money by the millions and manufacturing is making $7 bucks an hour. There's something very wrong with that.

Did anyone watch the video? Here's another one.



Yeah, I'm stepping out, too.


[edit on 28-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Ok guys, I'm stepping out for now. Bottom line is this: There is no right or wrong, as it's only a way of thought (one's perception vs. anothers), not a birth right...no matter what side you are on. We can debate until we are all blue in the face; however, right/wrong will never be proven nor declared...and one thing is for sure...The world will keep on spinning!

reply to post by Aggie Man


But would it change anything?

If we start redistributing wealth through increased taxes for the rich, what are they going to do?

If they are a company that produces goods, they will counter this by raising prices, or laying workers off. So how does this help?

Sure these people may start receiving someone else's money for doing nothing, but if they are paying more for the things they need, what good does it do?

reply to post by Aggie Man


4 years of it may not be such a bad thing.

We might go broke, but at least our foreign policy will be a bit more relaxed again.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Corporation CEOs and other executives are raking in the money by the millions

Yes BH, what you state is true. But you fail to state is that they make this money by signing legal binding contracts before becoming the big men of the company. And the Board agrees to the terms of the contract on behalf of the shareholders. If people really desire a company to pay their CEO's an honest pay then people should boycott a companies goods until that demand is met.

Personally, I can't blame the CEO's that much. If somebody tried to give me an outlandish contract, I would sign on the dotted line as well. Whether the company failed or succeeded, I would be well compensated....

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

If we start redistributing wealth through increased taxes for the rich, what are they going to do?

If they are a company that produces goods, they will counter this by raising prices, or laying workers off. So how does this help?

Sure these people may start receiving someone else's money for doing nothing, but if they are paying more for the things they need, what good does it do?

i think you and Skyfloating have done an excellent job in pointing out the flaws in this really bad plan.

people ask the government for all these programs but freak out when they see that they have lost some of their liberties. this is a community/state issue and not a federal one. how can anybody in DC know what is best for people struggling in Decatur, GA?

Independent Thought Alarm!!!

State agencies should have the ability to intervene in times of need for help, and not just tack on a rider to a bill that will sit in congress for 2+ years.

I don't think in any way would this be fair,how do you know how some of these people got their money,problem is if he spreads the wealth the poor would just end up broke again life isn't fair some people lack ambition so it's easier to tell everyone that your a relief pitcher,you go down to the relief office with a new pitch

Give money to someone who is not educated in handling money and watch it dissappear within a short time.

This country doesnt need "redistribution of wealth", it needs education...especially financial education.

I went to a restaurant for a late lunch. As we were leaving, I was discussing your post with my lunch friend, and on impulse I tried my own experiment.

I left a ten percent tip -- one dollar. Plus, I left a Sacagawea dollar, which has been kicking around in my pocket this week. Finally, I left a one line note on a napkin asking the waitress to put the dollar coin into the Muscular Dystrophy jar at the end of the counter. Then I left.

What do you know? I checked back after finishing some errand. That dollar was sitting clear as day in the jar.

So I guess people are not that greedy. Some people.


#

Although I think I've proved you wrong with this anecdotal story, you should be flattered that I spent a dollar to test your hypothesis. For some reason this really stuck with me all day.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Give money to someone who is not educated in handling money and watch it dissappear within a short time.

This country doesnt need "redistribution of wealth", it needs education...especially financial education.

Aaaaah, that's what I was thinking.

It should be in mandatory curriculum starting in middle school, and mortgages should only be given to people who pass a standard test in this subject. If people aren't smart enough to do a simple test on interest accrual and affordability of ARM, they should never get a mortgage in the first place. After all, we have drivers licenses and that's the only wayt to drive, right?

I've heard that homeless story more than ten times this week. Just surf the net for propaganda videos made by angry McCain supportes. I call BS on the OP's entire story. I get that they were probably just trying to make a point though.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

i think most of the ideas here run off a flawed idea, that the rich got rich without help and by being smart and hardworking. The fact is, the rich get massive subsidies from the government, and they were just given 800billion on top of the normal annual subsidies. So why is it making the poor weak when we give them money, but not the rich?? Our government is giving massively more money to rich people now than poor people, and more of the money they give to the rich goes into fewer hands, with some corporations getting millions of dollars, whereas the allocation to the poor is at most a few thousand per person each year. Our system regularly gives millions of our tax dollars to fabulously wealthy people who already own many homes cars, etc, while those in foreclosure are left to their own, and blamed for their lives. And on top of this, much of the problem the lower and middle class are in is due to the fact that wages have been artificially kept low by the ruling class. Since the 70's the GDP has doubled, but the average working mans buying power has actually DECREASED. If wages had grown at the same rate as production as is supposed to happen, the minimum wage today would be around 19.60/hour, the working class would have much more money and wouldnt have to be beggaring themselves in order to own a home and car, and our economy would be doing much better right now. But due to our business leaders allowing inflation to go up while keeping wages down, THEY have reaped in all the profit and the working class has reaped only debt. THIS is the fair and equal system you guys are espousing?? apparently it is ok in your eyes to distribute money from the bottom up, but from the top down is sin. Warren Buffet was even complaining that under the Bush tax cuts he only pays 17% in taxes while his secretary pays 30%. The fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite in our country have much more power to effect the laws due to lobbyists and donations, and they have used this power to legislate on their behalf at our expense (such as in the medicaid expansion bill, this bailout, etc) and used the media to spread this idea to the working poor who have illusions that they are not poor, and this fools them into supporting legislation that is against their own best interest.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by pexx421]