Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution?

It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Weather it be, salary, buildings, social security, Medicaid, government contracts any of it. It all goes towards the creation of high paying jobs at some point. Non of the money just sits in an account it all ends up in someone's pocket at some point.

So I realized that as long as we are in this System of paying taxes then we're a socialist country no matter how you look at it. It's just to what extent are we socialist, how much do they control the means of production?

a reply to: onequestion

uhmm... paying taxes doesn't equate to socialism.

Just saying.

a reply to: onequestion

Socialism is when all major industries are owned by the state....taxes has nothing to do with it.

www.merriam-webster.com...

quit listening to Rush

You are mostly correct, though I would take issue with social security. And this gets to the heart of the matter when you start talking about the "fair share" corporations supposedly do not pay. ALL taxes are paid by people, including corporate taxes. All a corporation does is pass the taxes on in the higher cost of their products. Everyone who works for a corporation, from high paid CEO to low-paid janitor, pays individual taxes on both income and dividends, and even capital gains should they sell shares.

So it's a myth and a displacement to claim corporations don't pay their "fair share" because if you decide Ford or GM needs to pay more corporate taxes to make everyone feel good, you just will pay more for a car. There really is no such thing as "corporate taxation." It all comes out of our pockets one way or another.

People like to think of taxes as redistribution of wealth; I don't believe we can call it that until we see a law disallowing personal wealth over a certain amount & issue the excess to the masses in forms of tax refunds.

Taxes are essential for a functioning government.

a reply to: muse7

Essential for a functioning country really.

[exaggeration]
Unless you like living in a place that resembles something out of Mad Max.
[/exaggeration]

originally posted by: schuyler
You are mostly correct, though I would take issue with social security. And this gets to the heart of the matter when you start talking about the "fair share" corporations supposedly do not pay. ALL taxes are paid by people, including corporate taxes. All a corporation does is pass the taxes on in the higher cost of their products. Everyone who works for a corporation, from high paid CEO to low-paid janitor, pays individual taxes on both income and dividends, and even capital gains should they sell shares.

So it's a myth and a displacement to claim corporations don't pay their "fair share" because if you decide Ford or GM needs to pay more corporate taxes to make everyone feel good, you just will pay more for a car. There really is no such thing as "corporate taxation." It all comes out of our pockets one way or another.

No one has suggested it is all corporations, but here in the U.K, Google has just agreed a taxation figure with my Government, that equates to a rate of 3% corporation tax over the last ten years.

But then again, my Government no doubt has agreed to a sharing of information with this organisation.

Technology companies are allowed to pay less tax for a reason, the sharing of Internet access information is a big part of it.

originally posted by: muse7
Taxes are essential for a functioning government.

I am all for a non-functioning Federal Government. Screw Washington.

originally posted by: schuyler
You are mostly correct, though I would take issue with social security. And this gets to the heart of the matter when you start talking about the "fair share" corporations supposedly do not pay. ALL taxes are paid by people, including corporate taxes. All a corporation does is pass the taxes on in the higher cost of their products. Everyone who works for a corporation, from high paid CEO to low-paid janitor, pays individual taxes on both income and dividends, and even capital gains should they sell shares.

So it's a myth and a displacement to claim corporations don't pay their "fair share" because if you decide Ford or GM needs to pay more corporate taxes to make everyone feel good, you just will pay more for a car. There really is no such thing as "corporate taxation." It all comes out of our pockets one way or another.

Well crap!

By George, I think you're right.

a reply to: olaru12

quit listening to Rush

Good advice for humans in general.

a reply to: schuyler

It is not necessary for the cost of taxation to be passed, in full, to the consumer. When dealing with a large company, with many managers, pen pushers, and high paid executives, the answer is to be found in cutting from the top of a company, not from the bottom. The bottom do the work without which the company cannot function. They make the product, provide the service, and keep the machinery running.

If we were to compare your average company to a vehicle, the masses of the staff would be the engine, the wheels, the axles, the segments of the vehicle which actually perform its major role, of moving around. The other parts of the organisation are like the less necessary parts of a vehicle. Your senior executives are cupholders, glove boxes, the little fancy mesh that goes over the gear stick to keep detritus out of the way. Their function is about trim, not the mechanical business of getting from point A to point B.

In short, they could afford to take a pay cut, and so they should be the first, and until they reach the point of being paid exactly as much as the lowest paid member of the necessary workforce, they should not be damned well complaining, because there is not a single executive at high level, who wants for a new pool cover every couple of years and enough money to educate their kids. They could live off their savings till the doom of the world, and they damned well ought to, because the chances are, that they got where they are by failing to pay a decent wage to those below them.

Complete totalitarian socialism is one emergency away.

In a free market, socialism would be at least two steps away. More like several generations away.

Our government passes laws and decrees executive orders about anything, in the name of the greater good. That is defacto socialism.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: schuyler

It is not necessary for the cost of taxation to be passed, in full, to the consumer. When dealing with a large company, with many managers, pen pushers, and high paid executives, the answer is to be found in cutting from the top of a company, not from the bottom. The bottom do the work without which the company cannot function. They make the product, provide the service, and keep the machinery running.

If we were to compare your average company to a vehicle, the masses of the staff would be the engine, the wheels, the axles, the segments of the vehicle which actually perform its major role, of moving around. The other parts of the organisation are like the less necessary parts of a vehicle. Your senior executives are cupholders, glove boxes, the little fancy mesh that goes over the gear stick to keep detritus out of the way. Their function is about trim, not the mechanical business of getting from point A to point B.

In short, they could afford to take a pay cut, and so they should be the first, and until they reach the point of being paid exactly as much as the lowest paid member of the necessary workforce, they should not be damned well complaining, because there is not a single executive at high level, who wants for a new pool cover every couple of years and enough money to educate their kids. They could live off their savings till the doom of the world, and they damned well ought to, because the chances are, that they got where they are by failing to pay a decent wage to those below them.

Supply and demand says otherwise.

Yes, even the cheapest employee is important. However, that employee is easily replaceable which is why their wages are lower. The employees in management usually have specialized skills that are not as easily replaceable and there are fewer of them. You can't replace the accounting guy, the finance guy, the corporate strategy guy, the brand management guy, etc as easy as you can replace someone who drives widgets. This is why their salaries are higher. The company has to pay more to attract the skills it needs.

Again, simple supply and demand.

Management employees do often take pay cuts and get laid off too.

Taxation is necessary for government to operate. No one disputes this notion.

The debate centers around what functions government should be doing and if they are utilizing tax revenues efficiently and effectively.

When you have half the population not contributing in any meaningful way financially, those that do contribute are well within their rights to question how their money is being spent by the government. I have no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with politicians pissing away my hard earned money.

When others realize they can vote to take away other people's money is when our system fails. This is what is happening now. Everyone believes their cause du jour is of critical importance and demanding that other people pay for it.

We need clearly defined roles for federal and state government. Typically, any gaps are made up by private individuals and charity.

a reply to: Edumakated

It's like I said though. All that brand management nonsense is rubbish. Good products do not require people to push paper on their behalf. Good products require that the fellow driving widgets, and boring out cylinder blocks is paid right, and happy in his work, because that improves the reliability of the end product, which is the ONLY thing about a company that matters a god damn.

There has never been a point where a company that was making consistently good products, with low failure rates, and high reliability, went to the wall. Some idiot with a pen has always mismanaged those companies into the ground, and it is there that they fall, not at the factory floor level, but in management. Use quality materials, use quality designs and get quality floor staff in, and you can make anything sell, because if you have those three, you have a company worth investing in. If you leave everything to people who believe in the product, love it, and have not thought about the bottom line since they started working at the place, you get good products, and if you have those, you can sell them without a brand manager, or a bloody corporate strategist.

An accountant is a grafter. Mine is a bloody BEAST around tax time, from job to job like a hopscotch mad six year old, but with all the calculating power of a supercomputer running on captured stars. You have to have your taxes right, and your payroll sorted. But the vast majority of these bloated fools who operate at the highest levels, are doing jobs that DO NOT REQUIRE DOING, and getting paid boatloads for them. The companies that NEED these people are the companies who are selling you something you do not need in the first place. The companies who are providing goods and services that speak for themselves LITERALLY, are the ones you want to be spending your money with, because otherwise you end up paying a premium on the BS, something you did not need, and did not want.

There is a difference between a use tax and a head tax.

A bridge toll that paid for the bridge and nothing else would be a use tax.

Paying 20% of your income for whatever is redistribution.

a reply to: olaru12

quit listening to Rush

Why? They can make so much sense.



Maybe they had a bad tax year, no?

Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution?

It's only redistribution when the wealthy have to pay them, duh.