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

I bring up this example of Capitalism vs redistribution of wealth (modified version of Socialism) all the time. Think of the MLB vs the NFL. The MLB is majorly Capitalistic. You have a huge budget team like the New York Yankees and small budgets like the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Yankees have won 28 championships in 100 years to a measly 4 by the Pirates. The Yankees are competitive with anyone while the Pirates, quite frankly, stink.

The NFL is more socialist, with revenue redistribution and a maximum spending limit (salary cap). Yet, it's much more competitive than the MLB. The wonderful thing about the NFL is that a small market team like the Green Bay Packers can be great, because of spending limits and redistribution of wealth. Green Bay has a minuscule budget compared to other NFL teams, yet won the super bowl last year because the playing field was leveled for all teams (no pun intended).

I guess my point is that Capitalism works for the privileged, but can quickly get out of hand, with the gap widening between rich and poor. The playing field is not level for all teams. Socialism, or at least the NFL's model of it, levels the playing field. There still might be elite teams, but at least there's equal opportunity (or close to it).

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Jezus
It isn't punishment, it is simply a logistical part of capitalism.

When people have such a massive percentage of the overall income, of course they are going to have to pay a larger percentage of the taxes.

What I find interesting and a big part of the problem is that the lower 60% or so have a flat income of over 20 plus years where the rich doubled. Well that is about right with inflation with 1 million 20 years ago is equal to 2 million today.

I understand this graph is so disturbing that you assumed inflation exaggerated it...

1. The top 1% more than doubled after taxes
2. The bottom 80% dropped after taxes

"Incomes are deflated using the Consumer Price Index."

reply to post by gwydionblack


Try to think in relativistic terms.

If I have ten dollars and the government taxes me 10%. Then I'm left with $9.

If I have a million dollars and the government taxes me 10%. Then I'm left with $900,000.

Who has more to work with? For a person with little to no funds, every dollar matters in a way that a person with 100,000 times that will never consider. To give this a quantitative measure. You're equating the purchasing power of $100,000 with $1 and $900,000 with $9. The economies of scale change dramatically based on the order of magnitude between the differing income brackets. So for instance with $900,000 (9*10⁵) I can still start a new business. Whereas with $9 (9*10⁰) I might be able to afford dinner.

It's like trying to equate macro cosmology (10⁵) to quantum mechanics (10⁰). It doesn't work.

Originally posted by mossme89
I bring up this example of Capitalism vs redistribution of wealth (modified version of Socialism) all the time. Think of the MLB vs the NFL. The MLB is majorly Capitalistic. You have a huge budget team like the New York Yankees and small budgets like the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Yankees have won 28 championships in 100 years to a measly 4 by the Pirates. The Yankees are competitive with anyone while the Pirates, quite frankly, stink.

The NFL is more socialist, with revenue redistribution and a maximum spending limit (salary cap). Yet, it's much more competitive than the MLB. The wonderful thing about the NFL is that a small market team like the Green Bay Packers can be great, because of spending limits and redistribution of wealth. Green Bay has a minuscule budget compared to other NFL teams, yet won the super bowl last year because the playing field was leveled for all teams (no pun intended).

I guess my point is that Capitalism works for the privileged, but can quickly get out of hand, with the gap widening between rich and poor. The playing field is not level for all teams. Socialism, or at least the NFL's model of it, levels the playing field. There still might be elite teams, but at least there's equal opportunity (or close to it).

edit on 19-10-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)

Are you attempting to actually make the argument that more people are competitive in a socialist economic model? There are some things left out with your analogy there..The teams share the revenue from certain sources only, that are agreed upon with a contract (the CBA) The teams do not share income from their respective facilities from ticket sales, parking, concessions, merchandising at the stadium. The revenues shared amongst the teams and the league are from the TV and commercial proceeds and merchandising on the national or global scale, such as an NFL licensed product you buy from a website or the madden game. You most always realize that the NFL is also voluntary. You can chose to do it or not participate. In a socialist government you have no choice, therefore I find it morally and ethically wrong. In our system you have a choice, you can compete in it, or you can coast through it, or you can band together with like minded individuals and create a commune and live off the land if that is your choice.

There is equal opportunity in our system if yo are willing to work for it. The problem is, noone is willing to work for it. yes the rich have a leg up, that just means you have to work a little harder. 10 years ago my wife and I didnt have a pot to piss in. I worked 2 jobs to make ends meet, and my wanted to go back to school and get a more useful degree. So I worked 2 sometimes 3 jobs to make it happen. Now, she is making a decent living and everything is good. Maybe some of these people need to pull themselves up and stop crying woe is me and do something about their situation.

I think I would much prefer redistribution of goods that are needed, such as food and water. I also think that necessary things such as electricity and shelter should be more accessible and cheaper. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer because there will always be someone that is still the richest and someone that is the poorest.

I believe people should be paid a living wage and have access to education of their choice. We should not be dictated about where we would like to work or what interests we take. But we also need to improve our work ethic in this country. Someone should be paid for the work they do, not get paid for having a job but not working at it. Employees need to have safe places to work at without fear of losing their jobs for reporting workplace abuses.

Money should be worth something, because the less valuable it is while more money is printed merely creates a false economy.

The most false idea that immigrants are given about this nation is that we achieve easy money and are decadent. Part of the perpetuation of that idea is the many people who would rather not work because some jobs they feel are beneath them.

reply to post by DZAG Wright



Oh please, please kind sir. Please break it down for my simpleton self. I am waiting with baited breath for you to take the time and help me see and understand the big mean world beyond my nose.

I never said unions were the reason. I said they had a hand in it. But you are more than welcomed to enlighten me with your wisdom.

I have watched many protesters complain about how the rich need to be paying their fair share. Some have even talked about redistribution. The funny thing is, when you ask them to elaborate why, they just look at you and say….Ahh…because they’re rich. There is maybe 1 or 2 who elaborate and give a good explanation, but most have no idea.

What this is, is that many people have been fed Marxist propaganda in the Universities, and through various Democrat and Socialist organizations. They may not have known that is what they have been told, but that is certainly the ideology.

I'm wondering why anyone who pays taxes into the system is asking to pay more taxes? Even Warren Buffet failed to pay the taxes he owed...i'm certain that he stands to gain from all this OWS protesting...just exactly what I am not certain...perhaps some more cronyism from Barack after re election?

I also question why some of the wealthiest are those who promote Socialism....that is...socialism for us, not for them...If Buffet was paying all the tax he owed maybe it would be a different thing...

reply to post by gwydionblack


This "rich should pay more stuff is a load of crap." I'm glad to respond to Mr. Gwydionblack.
Thanks for one of the more intelligent posts I've seen on Above Top Secret. My friends are rich,
They WORKED for it - a novel concept - and they worked damned hard. Why should they have to turn over more of their hard-earned dollars to a greedy government which both overspends and throws money down the toilet on a regular basis?
In case you all don't realize it - you are being mind-controlled into a class warfare belief system that is designed to keep the focus off the government and its officials who are all leeches living off our backs. Wake up people.
It's not about rich vs. poor - it's about who's pulling the strings.

because we do all the working and paying living and dying and they make the money off of our backs

I'll let George explain it

A flat tax sounds like a good idea until you do the math. Lets just say there is a 5 percent flat tax, and Use Biff, who is rich, and Wendy, who is a wage slave, as examples. So Biff gets a five percent flat tax on his 1.3 million dollar income. He still has 1.23 million a year to live on, thats roughly 23653 dollars a week to live on. Wendy who works fast food and makes 6500 a year, loses 375 dollars and has 6175 a year to live on, that breaks down to 118 dollars a week. Biff is paying the same flat rate, but since his net income is much higher he doesnt feel the pinch. Wendy, who is eating cat food to begin with, cannot afford to lose any money as she is barely existing to begin with. So the 375 dollars she pays is a much bigger pinch for her. Also I think most flat tax proposals exclude capital gains and income from investments. So the rich get two breaks right off the bat that the poor wont be able to take advantage of. Doesnt sound like much of a change to me. Unless you are rich.

reply to post by gwydionblack


I don't believe the wealthy should pay any more tax than the rest of us. I do believe vehemently that they not pay any less simply because they can afford more creative accounting and lawyers well versed in tax avoidance. Tax should be fair and equitable across the board.

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? Do they have to settle with a 100 foot yacht instead of a 120 foot yacht? A domestic instead of a chef? I think when you look at these sacrifices against the ones we are asking of the middle class and the poor, ie greatly reduced or eliminated medical care, reduced or eliminated social security benefits, defunding of libraries, schools, hospitals, and parks. The inability to get an education if you are not rich without incurring crushing debt. Being financially destroyed if you or someone in your family gets sick and you are uninsured. If you put these sacrifices in two columns I think you might come to the conclusion that the rich are not being asked as much as the poor, in the worst of scenarios.

let me just make a slight point. say im struggling and making low wages and need to get a loan to pay for a car for example. I get £2000 loan and pay it of over the course of 2 years, totalling say £3000 back to the bank

the super rich person will £300,000,000 in their bank makes £2000 a month on interest. Where does that money they get come from? all the interest we poor got to pay back to the banks

is that fair, where the poor pay the rich for nothing more than the rich having a higher amount of money?

say i worked in a factory, it got shut down because of the banking crisis, i can no longer pay my loan, so they take my car, i cant pay my morgage so they take my house, yet its ok, the multi milloniare keeps making money while im now homeless and broke.

the whole way the system works is mess up and it has to be fixed. The poor get screwed over all the time, and seeing as we make up the majority of the population, then most of us get screwed at somepoint, one way or another

I don't think many people would advocate over-taxing the wealthy motivated by the desire to punish hard workers. I think most people would rather reward people who do useful hard work. The fact is that many wealthy are not hard workers, and many who are accumulate wealth radically out of proportion to the work they have done. And on the other end of the scale there are plenty of people working hard every day who will never be wealthy because their line of work is undervalued by society or because of some other shortcoming.

The way people come to possess wealth is not entirely fair, so it is hard to argue that any kind of wealth redistribution would also be unfair.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Because its simple economics tax the rich more than the poor and you get more money. A 5 year old could tell the same answer

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I agree, but what tax breaks are the rich getting that makes our cities suffer because of it?

reply to post by gwydionblack


lol This sounds silly but the amount some rich have is un spendable even for there kids kids and so on. When it comes to taxation i leave that in more intelligent peoples hands. I have faith in the OWS and what will come of it. Keep in mind i am a idealist, but still am aware ideals can be made practical. So i would like to see a type of cap on how much these people can earn. Its not like the CEOs or bankers risk there lives like more middle class professions ie fire fighters, army,police and many more. They don't save live's like doctors,nurses, paramedics. They don't work not like the working man or woman who are the instruments solely for their fulfilment of greed and gluttony on the backs of us. The anger that comes from people like me is that the more the bankers mess our country's up means the more inflation and taxation which hand in hand means the more time i spend working doing over time just to provide a roof, which could be taken by the same bank who coursed this, and food for my family. It also means less time enjoying my life,and i don't mean holidays or any luxuries just waking up on Saturday playing ball with the kids or even putting them to bed at seven with a kiss. Theses CEOS and bankers are creating fatherless or motherless homes it reaches alot further than you think. My anger is not because i wont more wealth and i believe its the same with others it is because i don't wont to work all my life with very few memorise with my family. It goes deeper than superficial money matters. The effect that has trickled down to us average joes is less living more working because of greedy bankers and CEOs they can play with our money because not alot of people understand the way in which they do this thats how they have got away with it so long. But play with a man or woman's family and they will end up with OWS