1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

71% of Democrats Believe in Redistributing Wealth

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Mike, when someone's opinion doesn't mean anything to me, just ignore the person. So please, either STFU about not caring about my opinion, or act on what you say. You obviously care, perhaps a bit too much.
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As for your silly argument on defense paying for rich and hence why the government spending benefits the RICH more, I disagree http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/who-benefits-fr.html

    The argument is just retarded, I can't find a more kind word for it. Don't like it, too bad, don't pout but prove me wrong.
  3. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Your link falls far short of capturing every extra benefit that the wealthy receive, including many that are intangible that would be difficult to price but are necessary for success. In any event, there's an alternate way of looking at the "rich" that counters even the simplified calculation in the supplied link: the wealthiest 20% own far more of the wealth (I believe over 80% based on news stories a few weeks ago) and so should pay more for protection of that wealth and for the society that allowed generation of that wealth. This fits much better with the argument than simply looking at income, without even considering the intangibles.

    Hardly a retarded argument from that standpoint.
  4. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Examples please, of those extra benefits that are specifically provided by a governmental entity that are not available to the non-wealthy. Please include a definition or criteria for "wealthy."
  5. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    The "rich" already pay more, much more in taxes and make up the largest chunk of the tax collections in this country. To use your words, "protecting" that wealth is already costing them more than others. In essence, they are already footing the bill for most of the country, yet you'd like them to foot all of it?

    The reality is that you could tax all income above $250,000 in this country at a full 100% and it would still only fund the federal government for about 150 days. That's it. Doesn't work out very well does it?

    Oops...sorry...it's only 141 days...my bad...
  6. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    That question is worthy of a thread of its own. If you're talking about freedom of speech, for example, I would say I know so many people who are 'poor' who spout the politics of the 'rich' that it suggests a linkage between their income and their politics, even while they appear to be independent citizens. In other words, in some way the wealthy are in control of the "opinions" of significant numbers of the poor.
    Let me give you an example:
    I got a flat tire on my bike the day before Obama was elected to the presidency. I got it to the nearest bike shop, a name brand dealer of mc's, jet skis and off road things. While I was waiting an hour or two for the tire to get changed the owner (I presume) talked on and on about how he makes over $250K and he's going out of business if Obama gets elected. I just needed my tire changed and I'm a paying customer, so gentle disagreement wasn't risky, but imagine you work for that guy. You agree with him, you're "intelligent", you disagree, you're an "idiot" or worse, perhaps. Nobody is forcing you to say or do anything but you can see which side of the bread the butter is on.
    Obama got elected and the guy is still in business, so busy I need an appointment and he has no room to store my bike if I bring it in early, but I'm rather sure he'd still echo every bad thing ever said about Obama in this forum. I think I said a long time ago, perhaps in the Global Crisis forum, that involved with a political party in this country has a lot in common with living in a one-party country. You either agree with the party or you don't, and if you disagree you're off the gravy train. And that's the gravy train that allegedly has nothing to do with politics.
  7. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Well, I've given a few. Maybe this will clarify: the person with $100M in assets has much more to lose than the person with $100K in assets in terms of monetary value. In my view he is getting an extra benefit in the form of the government protecting approximately $100M more of his assets through various mechanisms compared to the guy with $100K. Certainly everyone has the equal opportunity (at least theoretically) to make $100M worth of assets needing protection, but only a few do, require that extra benefit.
  8. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    No, just some more of it. Many of the "rich" agree (with rich meaning millionaires or better such as Buffett).
  9. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    May I ask, wasn't it the radical new idea of an income tax the thing that started the poor paying taxes in the first place? The poorest people didn't own property, did they, in the immigrant slums of the nostalgic (sort of) movies? This entire debate is about income tax, really.
    I have, within the last 7 years, acheived an "average" income. For the 30 plus years before that, I had below-average income, and I seem to recall paying federal taxes every single year. Where does the "49% pay no taxes" come from, unless it's made up largely from those who are wealthy enough to use tax loopholes to pay no taxes? The argument that the loweer 49% don't pay taxes is bizarre.
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Oh yes, the example of Buffett and Zucky, who say to Obama, "I am cool with that..."http://www.uproxx.com/news/2011/04/mark-zuckerberg-cool-with-paying-more-taxes/

    1. Just like the guy making 15K a year should be speaking out for someone like me, there's a problem with someone like Buffett and Zucky, doing the same for me. Imagine, super-millionaires setting tax policy for the rest of us! Liberals love it, bunch the middle class who is overtaxed as it is and lump em with Dick and Harry. Their incomes, standards of living, and purchasing power are hardly comparable to those of most Americans, or even those making $500,000 or $1 million a year. It is incredibly stupid, reckless, and even demeaning for these super-millionaires to be calling for more taxes, because no matter how willing they are to pay more taxes themselves, the burden will likely fall on many people making a lot less money than they do. People like me, Gregg, etc...

    2. It’s a hollow gesture to say the federal government should raise the tax rate on the country’s top wage earners when the likes of Zuckerberg have most of their wealth tied up in stock. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/01/an-empty-offer-from-the-super-rich.html

    3. Take a look at this chart: [​IMG]

    I know it's small but it's easy to see the numbers. Basically, stick with colors. Red is salary, blue is non-salary income. income goes up, the proportion coming from wages/salary decreases (red). Wealthy Americans draw much of their income from dividends, interest payments, and capital gains (blue). People with capital income have much greater control over the timing, level, and composition of their income than those who are bound to yearly salaries. I don't know anyone who would disagree with this, right?

    As Gregg already pointed out, top 10% of tax filers — those earning about $114,000 or more — pay 70% of all federal income taxes. However, the burden is not shared equally among relatively high earners. According to IRS, filers with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 pay the biggest share of their income in taxes. Not Zucky types, not Buffetts.

    In summary, Mr. Republican, the fact that Buffett and Zucky want to increase their taxes -- their stupendous portion of income comes from NON-SALARY. They tuck that money where you won't ever see it in the government. And here's a whopper for you, most people with large and diverse portfolios like Warrens and Zuckys may never need to pay the capital-gains tax, so long as they can balance selling assets with gains and losses.

    Don't believe me?

    Here's the source from CBO:

  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Come on, man!

  13. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    And me. I'm not so hypocritical as to recommend a solution that will only burden others.

    And that was Buffett's point, that he paid percentage-wise less taxes than his employees, something that needed to be at least partly corrected through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
  14. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Which comes around full circle to the notion that we do not have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem.

    LOOK - No mindful conservative is taking taxes completely off the table of the discussion. We're simply insisting that reduction in government come FIRST!!!

    When liberals want to get serious about fixing our budget issues, they will be ready to start talking about cutting the budget and services. When that day comes, come ask me for my opinion and my vote. Until then, liberals are just blowing a bunch of bullshit at us.
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Funny how Conservatives are willing to compromise...
  16. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    We have a spending problem in this country (and particularly in California--which is why I'm leaving it), but a large part of the voters seem to agree with the (Democrat) concept of services and programs being all important, and if worse comes to worse just tax everybody more to pay for the shortfall. I'm less knowledgeable about the federal situation but as far as I can see it's very similar, apparently a majority who don't want to reduce services, perhaps paying lip service to not wanting higher taxes, but nevertheless there's no way to pay for the programs without higher taxes.

    This is particularly poignant considering the large numbers of unemployed, previously employed persons who paid taxes and spent their income buying goods/services from the rest of the economy. In other words they were doing their duty as workers and as consumers.

    You can milk a cow only so much. Eventually you're taking all the milk and if you suck anymore you're going to start removing titty. And of course less titty produces less milk, so when you run the pumps after that you're in big trouble. I think that's what America faces now, too many services, too much spending, too many tax increases to pay for it at a time when most people can't afford more taxes.
  17. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    Short of time, so rushing to reply, but if this is true:
    It's nuts. And I only carried the quote into the Obama part so I wouldn't be accused of bushitler bashing.
    But think about this, a 10% jump in no-tax households followed by a 2% increase for the next administration, there could be more to it than just steering the economy.
    IMHO be it what it is, for political reasons Obama likely couldn't turn around and add 10% of houeseholds to the taxpayers without being accused of being a closet conservative, while Bush obviously did a mega-hit of liberal spending pill, no?
  18. mikeky

    mikeky Member

  19. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Not high enough obviously since she doesn't realize that businesses and rich people actually do pay their "fair share" and then some.


    And let's not forget all the revenue (taxes) that our generated for our government from the jobs that are created by those big, bad, freeloading rich guy companies.
  20. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Well, you got part of your statement right, she is a Democrat socialist. She's just ranting, Mike. Rant rant rant... More blame Bush. Never looking at the Democrat congress, eh? Bush's fault for the "stupid" wars, blah blah blah, no mention of events leading us to that inevitability. Wars that Obama continues to fight, but no mention of him, eh?

    She may be a Harvard professor, but that doesn't make her 1) unbiased, and 2) intellectually honest.

    I am no more informed by having listened to it.

Share This Page