Why do people believe in redistrubution of wealth and more taxes for the rich?

Originally posted by SM2
Yes the rest of us should be gaining something I agree. 100% I agree. I think the disagreement is on how to get there. You have some people that want the government to force the employers to get them there, which to me is a social justice angle (read marxist) and you have some people that say that the best way of getting there is to rely on oneself to get you there, which is the way I see it, self reliance, personal responsibility.

That concept is great in terms of individual behavior..

However, this is about a very small plutocracy with a monopoly on natural resources.

They manipulate complex financial markets and profit from the destabilization to our society.

They have profited while "the economy" is bad for the rest of us.







Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Note: This post regards federal income taxes, not state and other obscure tax issues

First: It is very hard to understand the political atmosphere surrounding any discussions dealing with taxes without a true comprehensive understanding of the historical contexts that have ingrained itself in American political theory. Even John Adams, who was avidly against the British tax policies and used it as a rallying point prior to the American revolution, would make a complete U-turn in his views on policy after becoming the second president; However, to this day it is a dialogue that continues to resonate and political or business leaders tap into regularly. that is where redistribution of wealth comes into play. The phrase was coined to create an incorrect notion that a tiered tax bracket is the same as communism, creating a fallacy between the two. Unfortunately, the largest portions of society don't understand the mechanisms behind it and it has worked almost as well as intended.

Now as for why there needs to be a tiered tax bracket:

It comes down to achieving 3 goals in order to maintain social order
1: Ideally you want as many people enjoying a respectable standard of living
2: The belief that there is always the potential for upward mobility economically and socially
3: Generate the revenue needed to support the governmental infrastructure

A single tax across the board would cause severe issues with these

We will start with goal 3. Taxes are required to generate the revenue to fund the government. Now in order to generate the needed revenue to operate a government operating as large as the US, a disproportionate amount of the responsibility would be put on the bottom of the barrel in terms of standard of living in order to make up the difference in revenue required. So to combat the poor standard of living tax breaks will need to be required to allow people to live respectably. At this point there would have to be a cutoff point between the poor and middle class. The middle class will then be the most affected by the tax code. Anyone who breaks into the middle class will be pushed downwards back to where they started, the middle class will not be able to sustain the tax requirements that will be required and at best will struggle to not lose wealth and will be unable to provide the belief that upward movement in the society is possible. This will lead to social unrest and and an unstable social climate.

While higher taxes in a sense seems unfair when we are preached to constantly about equality. The key is standard of living. The big numbers are crazy to look at and think about but the top 1% can take an increase in 1% of taxes and it won't affect the standard of living. Lower income families can't take that hit.

To quote Chris Rock "It's all about the Pre-nup. Everyone should have one, not just the rich. If you make 30 million and your wife wants half, you're gonna be fine. But if you make 30 thousand and she wants 15......you might have to..."

This is why a plan like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 is doomed to fail.

OK Folks, It's time to simmer down.

The personal attacks, mockery, and assorted other methods of disrupting conversational flow will stop right now!!

The topic of the thread is, and I quote, "Why do people believe in redistribution of wealth and more taxes for the rich". The discussion is not about other members.

Originally posted by wildtimes


Do you understand the living conditions of those who "pay nothing"? Do you understand that they are just as entitled to a decent home and nutritious food as you are?

This is where we differ, I do not feel I'm entitled to anything that I do not earn on my own. I also feel that unless you are physically or mentally unable you are not entitled to anything other than the same opportunities that I had and everyone else has if they so choose.

Many have poor choices and/or low ambitions to do good with their lives, or even be an asset to society. This doesn't mean I don't want to see them get help, but that help should have a limit to it. I have done a lot for my community and helped many, but I really don't see it as some mandatory Government entitlement just because someone is breathing

How dare you say that blasphemous post some rich persons money is yours!

Say seven hail mary's and repent your sins!

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Many have poor choices and/or low ambitions to do good with their lives, or even be an asset to society.

Asset to society?

The problem is that the "super rich" have proved to be detrimental to our economy and our ability to organize and accomplish goals as a society.

Originally posted by Jezus
They manipulate complex financial markets and profit from the destabilization to our society.

They have profited while "the economy" is bad for the rest of us.

Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.

reply to post by Jezus

The problem is that the "super rich" have proved to be detrimental to our economy and our ability to organize and accomplish goals as a society.

The "super rich" are the true welfare kings. They are living off the welfare of the people of our entire country....and those abroad. They have sapped the wealth of a once powerful middle class.

The wall street protests are only the beginning of what will come...unless things begins to change. It will dwarf the tea party protests in comparison.

Always find it amazing....the argument is, "If you tax the wealthy, they'll just pass it on to you."

Ok.

THEN WHY COMPLAIN? If they are just going to pass it down, why fight so damned hard if you are going to make up for it by gutting your employees or raising prices?

Isn't this what you want...the little people to pay more and let them take the majority of the cost of living increase?

BS....it's all BS.

It is simple. It is better to be rich and taxed at a higher rate than poor and taxed at a lower rate.

Originally posted by gwydionblack


reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Capitalism works towards human nature. It allows freedom with the small price of corruption, and it is up to the people and the government to protect themselves from that. Our government failed in that regard and our people have as well. That is the only problem with our system, the fact that good men stood by and did nothing as the bad men took control.

Umm... Capitalism tends to pervert human nature away from core drives and exaggerates less prevalent drives to detach, compete, dominate, acquire wealth/material possessions, slave for wages, and embrace greed. Humans are also quite dictated by the culture they live in... so Capitalism dictates us, it is not an accurate reflection of humans though. Though I do agree... our government did not act properly in the face of private-sector joyrides and destruction... they even ignored their own appointed whistle-blowers who were sounding the alarm long before this all happened.

What so few of those in favor of redistributing wealth fail to realize is how much the wealthy already pay! I worked for a 1%er, I wrote checks and bought supplies and I KNOW what he paid out.

When a person is poor, someone making $400,000.00 a year sounds VERY wealthy, but if you think they don't work and don't risk far FAR more than all the poor you are not looking beyond the end of your nose.

Let's just throw out the figure I stated, suppose my previous employer nets $400,000.00 a year. In order to do so he owns rental property.... So he pays taxes on his gross and the 400K is his net. Well first of all he will OWE taxes at the end of the year... this means UNLIKE the poor he gets NOTHING back and owes more. At the same time those screaming he is not working for his money get back most or ALL of the taxes taken from their checks and sometimes even MORE than they pay in. In effect these people do not pay taxes at all really...this is 50% of the nation...the other 50% are the ones paying for everything from roads to entitlement programs

Out of his net of 400K he still owes:

More Federal taxes
State Taxes
Borough taxes
City taxes
Property taxes
Sales tax
Maintenance
Insurance
Unemployment Insurance (for each employee)
Workmans Comp (for each employee)
Employee Wages
Maintenance
Utilities (his rents include all utilities plus cable TV) Image what just his cable bill is for a yr for 53 units!
Property Upgrades
Accountant fees
Legal fees
Rental fees for big equipment as needed
Appliance repair and replacement
Snow plowing
Landscaping

If he does any building improvements he pays
Contractors & Labor
Materials
Permits
Insurance

and.....drumroll INCREASES in taxes for his *improvements* because now his property has a higher value. If he does not do these things the poor will call him a Slum Lord......

After that, as a family man he has house hold expenses, healthcare for his family and well GEE...they MIGHT want to go on a vacation or buy a new car and since he has children he is trying to save for college for 2 children... He also has two elderly parents he helps out.


After all that how much does he have left of the 400K? The answer is NOT MUCH

I ask you, why in the holy hell would he go to all this trouble, headache and inconvenience to make around the same amount of money as say a Carpenter or a Plumber?

People need to realize that with position comes responsibility! All it takes is ONE person to sue him, even if it is a bogus suit he is better off to pay than fight in court a $50,000.00 that would cost triple that in legal fees to win...

If those in favor of taking his wealth get their way...WHERE will all the people he provides affordable housing to live?

The moment he thinks redistribution of wealth is going down he will dump his holdings and run with the cash he still has....and then were will the 50 plus families go??? You can bet the first thing the new owner will do is raise all the rents considerably to compensate for all the BS laws heading his way....

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it's just plain STUPID!

Be careful what you wish for....you just might get it

reply to post by Cinaed


While 400 grand is a TON of money to make every year... it is not 1% material. The 1%ers are making millions upon millions and their lifestyles aren't much affected by the taxes you've laid out.

Either way... people NEED health care, they NEED income, they NEED safe air/water/food, they NEED shelter, etc. The rich might have some pains in the ass for being rich... but their luxuries/securities far outweigh the pains/costs of being rich.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Those like you in favor of all this redistribution KEEP SAYING such people are not the 1%, however the federal government has deemed them so and your efforts will affect many many people like him whether you intend to or not. $250,000.00 is the cap $$$ amount so according to them he IS part of the 1%

It seems quite obvious to me you don't care about his situation, so why should he care about yours?

Once he and the 1000's like him dump their assets in the USA and go where they can continue to invest their money at a profit...where are you going to live?? and who are you going to work for?

reply to post by wildtimes


I have to laugh at that one, sorry. I am not even close to being a 1%er but I did have the opportunity to be at one point in my life. The reason I am not is after working for a few of the *fat cats* Odrama keeps pointing a finger at as evil I deemed it too much of a PITA to put up with all the BS and long hrs to get there.

Simply put, all the poor in the nation are not worth the head ache to try to help in such a manner as most of the people who will be affected by the $250,000.00 cap do that helps the poor. They own rental properties and businesses that hire those will less skills and qualifications etc etc etc. They train these people and offer various and limited benefits to their workers. In return they are cheated, hated and often sued to get that free ride...

There is no way in hell I would put up with all the crap and get constant slaps and jabs they contend with just to do business.

I opted instead to work fewer hrs for less money and let someone else have the headaches. I help people in my job and find it rewarding, sans headaches and responsibility to those that really don't deserve the trouble my bosses went to-- in striving to provide goods and services to the down trodden.

After just managing low end rental properties I can tell you there is just as much fraud and corruption on the low end as the high. I constantly turned in people cheating the welfare system and double dipping... and reported those taking their petty frustrations out on their children. People crapped in refrigerators, tried to blow up the building, punched holes in walls and threw fish in the hole and threatened people with violence and sometimes guns, people simply trying to do their job.... I had a guy run through the building half naked with a gun once just because I told him if he didn't move his car I'd have it towed... He called the police and tried to have me arrested...or SHOT, all because he didn't want to move his car....all very typical stuff that happens everyday...

In short, they disgusted me with what a NICE FREE RIDE they feel entitled to. It was so bad that the nice families that were struggling, trying to do right fall through the cracks...it's pathetic and I decided I wanted no part of helping such people

MANY of the poor everyone is harping about are every bit as crooked and dirty dealing as the *fat cats* you all seem to hate so much.

Originally posted by ThreeThreeThree

Originally posted by openminded2011
How much of a sacrifice is it for the rich to pay more taxes? 1.8 million a year income instead of 2.2? What are we defining as sacrifice? Do they have 3 homes instead of 4?

Why should someone pay more taxes because they make more? Just because they make more? That is not an incentive to invest in small business opportunities that create more jobs for those that have less money. If you want to make more money- go make it yourself. So many leeches in this country.

If you make more all by yourself, then it is yours and you should keep it. But if you are an employer, the profit you have is due to the hard work of your employers, and therefore the profit your company made should be distributed fairly among the contributors.

reply to post by masterp


Does that mean your employees must equally match the money the employer invests?? If not then what is your point??

If a person invests THEIR money why would they distribute it equally among the workers?? Wouldn't it just be easier to not have all the business headaches and just hand it over to free loaders? OH wait! then all the OTHER people that benefit indirectly would be out of jobs!

I have to wonder if most of the people complaining ever worked for a person that is a *fat cat*.... The last one I worked for put 8K out for my dental bills and never asked me to repay a dime. I got bonuses based on the fact I made him money.... to expect him to turn over additional profits just seems silly

WHO in their right mind would ever invest in a business with rules like that?

Answer.....no one that worked for the money they have!

reply to post by Cinaed


Do you not see past your own experience with the riff-raff renters?
I don't think anyone on here is saying that the welfare cheats, the double-dippers, the destroyers and slobs deserve handouts. I don't think they do, either.

The problem is the people who are out of work BECAUSE the corporations went "somewhere else" to hire some other country's ghetto-dwellers.

In another thread I posted we were discussing how Congress is trying to implement tax breaks for hiring the unemployed. And some of the "employed employERS" on there said they flat REFUSE to hire someone who's unemployed!

That is discrimination right out of the envelope -- oh, sorry, no more paper resumes accepted ---right at BOOT UP.
WHERE is the effort to put good hardworking people to work, who WANT to work, who might lose the homes they shelter their family in? I think it would be a better "first response" to filter job applicants by whether they have a MORTGAGE, or even if they have KIDS.

Corporations should not look at people as "the most output for the least input." These CEOs talk about everyone having the same opportunities. But they -- who are the ones who HOARD those same opportunities -- are unwilling to choose the best applicant, or the one most deserving and likely to be most grateful and WILLING to accept a wage lower than they might have commanded in the old days.

No one on this forum is asking for the "super-rich", or even the upper middle class, to support the criminal or uneducated or unhealthy. We are asking that the educated, experienced former MIDDLE CLASS be given...

no, not money....
nope, not handouts or a free ride...

pay attention now....

JOBS.

eta emphasis. big bold letters. so the word means more to those in need of visual aids.

reply to post by Cinaed

Out of his net of 400K he still owes:

net income

noun the excess of revenues and gains of a business over expenses and losses during a given period of time.

dictionary.reference.com...

Just so everyone knows what a strawman argument you are presenting, most of the expenses you list come out of his gross, the net income is what is left after all those bills are paid.

Would you care to show us what the net income is of those he employs, and what they have to pay out of it?

It appalls me that some people who live very, very well still feel the compulsion to acquire more at the expense of everyone else, and seem to resent the possibility that others (inferiors, by their lights) might possibly enjoy life at the same level they do.

The common themes seems to be "I worked hard(er)", "I made better decisions", "I'm smarter" "I succeeded despite having lazy, thieving employees who feel entitled...". Not once do I hear from the complainers "I got lucky" "My family has political ties" "Daddy's friends helped start and promote my business" "The people I employ made me what I am".

To hear them tell it, most of humanity are lazy, ignorant, drug-addicted scumbags whose sole goal in life is to pop babies and to live off the sweat of someone else's hard, hard work.

Funny how they all emphasize how hard they work. Talking on the phone, demanding cut rates for services and products, finding tax loopholes, threatening employees and providers really breaks a sweat, I guess. Paper-pushing is harder than I thought, I suppose. It's just as funny they don't seem to understand that nearly everyone works hard, and most work harder than they do, but fail to see much of a reward for their hard work.

I would expect them to be at "Free Bernie Madoff" rallies, since he worked hard, contributed to charities a lot, and employed people, fulfilling their criteria for goodness.

Oh, wait, it was their money he stole, big difference. If only he had restricted himself to stealing the little folks' money, he'd still be a free man, respected and protected by his peers.