Redistribution of Wealth

[Riogho]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111655/Americans-Split-Redistributing-Wealth-Taxing-Rich.aspx

 

In this Gallup article it says that 58% of Americans are for spreading the wealth, while 37% of americans are against it.

 

Mind you, this 'spreading the wealth' that gallup polled on was by levying heavy taxes on the rich and giving to the poor.

 

Am I the only one terribly outraged by this?

 

There is no way that is can be right to take someone's money, just because they have a lot of it, and give it to the poorer people. They earned that money, it is theirs, it is fundamentally wrong to take it, just to supplement someone who doesn't work hard enough/isn't smart enough to get a better job.

 

Mind you, welfare is a completely different thing here, I am not bashing that. But levying higher taxes on someone just because they are rich?

 

The best tax system is a % per income. They take 30% of your money you earn. End of story. Taxing a rich person 40% just because they are rich and making everyone else pay 20% is not right.

 

Uhg, I've been rambling, but it just makes me feel like the government is playing Robin Hood. And Robin Hood was an outlaw.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with ya there Riogho. But it's not playing Robin Hood as he stole from the GOVERNMENT and gave it back to the peasants.

[ydoaPs]

It's more like playing Marx. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

[bascule]

The best tax system is a % per income. They take 30% of your money you earn. End of story. Taxing a rich person 40% just because they are rich and making everyone else pay 20% is not right.

 

A flat tax places the majority of the tax burden on the lower and middle classes. Everyone must pay for the necessities of life, like room and board, and for the lower class that eats up a substantially higher percentage of your income than it does the upper classes (who are most likely living a more opulent lifestyle while paying a lower percentage of their income to do so).

 

I've seen flat tax schemes that try to resolve this problem by setting a floor underneath which you would pay no tax. However, I'm highly suspicious of the ability of any such scheme to collect sufficient tax revenue without overtaxing those at the bottom end. Such schemes would also make it difficult for people to move up from underneath the "floor", because as soon as you do you suddenly find yourself being taxed. Having incremental tax brackets helps alleviate that problem, as you aren't hit with going from paying no tax to paying the same amount of tax as the wealthiest people in America.

 

Progressive taxation works off the idea that those who have the means to pay a greater burden of the taxes ought to do so.

Edited October 30, 2008 by bascule

[Sisyphus]

We have progressive taxes because they work - they're the least harmful way overall to gather a given amount of revenue, in terms of maintaining the economy and a having a minimum of screwing people over. Is it fair? Not particularly, but fairness is highly subjective in things like this, and the effects are not nearly as melodramatic as Ayn Rand types would have you believe. I don't mind paying a higher rate than people poorer than me because I can much better afford it, and if I had to pay those taxes when I was poor, I would still be poor, and being poor I wouldn't be contributing nearly as much to the economy, in turn making other people poor, etc., etc. And I don't feel bad about making richer people pay more, because guess what? They're still rich. It's not like there's no motivation to make money. Trust me: people are still trying like hell to get rich.

[padren]

Well I completely disagree: progressive tax structures to me simply reflect that if this country has been good to you, you should be good to this country. It can get "out of hand" for sure, and I can agree there is room for discussion on where the line is, but I definitely disagree that this line is at a 'flat tax' level.

 

I doubt we could afford the infrastructure that is supported by government spending on a flat tax, and cutting it down to that level would cost wealthy people more than the taxes they spend.

 

If this is the best country to "make your fortune" in the world, then why is that? The relatively low corruption of judges and police, the strong (purely volunteer) military, the heavily developed highway infrastructure, the development of ARPANET into the internet, the FAA... the list goes on and no one makes their 'fortune' in a vacuum. This also doesn't begin to touch on the means wealthy people have to secure income from taxation through accounting techniques.

 

If I make $250,000 a year and the money over that gets taxed an additional 3% I'll personally attach a 'thank you note' along with my tax return.

[ParanoiA]

I won't rehash another debate on progressive taxation except to explore another potential issue I haven't seen brought up much - that progressive taxation provides a seeming indefinite ceiling for government spending. If you can continue to push the burden disproportionately to the rich then there really is no inherent ceiling other than maybe, 80% or so??

 

Whereas a flat tax system would tighten the belt sooner since, as has been pointed out, the poor can only get taxed so much and couldn't afford anything CLOSE to the maximum the rich could pay.

 

That's an appeal for government discipline, not an appeal for fair treatment for the rich, although I think that would qualify as well.

[foodchain]

I almost hate to say this but its like some post apocalyptic world. I don't care to bash bush anymore but is this all not some form of fallout? With war, the economy, internationals relations, that growing debt, so much on a list that could easily be lets say “gloomy” to think about.

 

Then you deal with the real world effects of such, like the massive number of jobs lost for one, cost of gas for another, its almost to easy. Simply put what is existing at that point to sustain those people? Lawful American society I think makes having the money a requirement for lawful survival. So this I think statistically means working, or having a job. What happens when system that provides this loses carrying capacity? The people don't disappear.

 

I think this is also a good argument for population control really. Some radical source of power that does not exist aside how do you keep growth to a standard that supports the population constantly?

So in short America or Americans overall I think desire a lawful society, and while it could be framed as robin hood, you could also think of it as a zombie movie. Either way it still does not account for shortcomings that can lead to issues of civility really.

[bascule]

I won't rehash another debate on progressive taxation except to explore another potential issue I haven't seen brought up much - that progressive taxation provides a seeming indefinite ceiling for government spending.

 

That'd be true if we actually had a balanced budget.

 

I'd argue that indefinite ceiling for government spending has far more to do with how often we raise the cap on the national debt and very little to do with progressive taxation.

 

Bush has overseen more spending than any other president in history, while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich and super-rich to a large degree.

[ParanoiA]

That'd be true if we actually had a balanced budget.

 

I'd argue that indefinite ceiling for government spending has far more to do with how often we raise the cap on the national debt and very little to do with progressive taxation.

 

Bush has overseen more spending than any other president in history, while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich and super-rich to a large degree.

 

Good points. Maybe if we had a balanced budget amendment, or something. Certainly this presidency could serve as the best evidence for it's need.

[Pangloss]

I'm so used to buying from Amazon that I can't remember the last time I paid sales tax.

 

In answer to the OP I think people are okay with "redistribution" so long as it's for investment in the country's future and keeping the playing field level. Education, health care, food and product safety regulations, etc. These things are important.

[Realitycheck]

A flat tax places the majority of the tax burden on the lower and middle classes. Everyone must pay for the necessities of life, like room and board, and for the lower class that eats up a substantially higher percentage of your income than it does the upper classes (who are most likely living a more opulent lifestyle while paying a lower percentage of their income to do so).

 

I've seen flat tax schemes that try to resolve this problem by setting a floor underneath which you would pay no tax. However, I'm highly suspicious of the ability of any such scheme to collect sufficient tax revenue without overtaxing those at the bottom end. Such schemes would also make it difficult for people to move up from underneath the "floor", because as soon as you do you suddenly find yourself being taxed. Having incremental tax brackets helps alleviate that problem, as you aren't hit with going from paying no tax to paying the same amount of tax as the wealthiest people in America.

 

Progressive taxation works off the idea that those who have the means to pay a greater burden of the taxes ought to do so.

 

Well said. It has this aroma of a caste system.

Edited October 31, 2008 by agentchange

[ydoaPs]

McCain's plan in his own words.

[Riogho]

A flat tax places the majority of the tax burden on the lower and middle classes. Everyone must pay for the necessities of life, like room and board, and for the lower class that eats up a substantially higher percentage of your income than it does the upper classes (who are most likely living a more opulent lifestyle while paying a lower percentage of their income to do so)..

 

But society needs a caste system in order to survive. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they deserve to be rich, and the government shouldn't discriminate against you just because you have money.

 

If the poor people get up to middle class living standard than all that does it re-define the lower class. We've seen it time and time again, you cannnot have everyone on the same page, there must be a caste system, but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair. And if it's a percentage based tax system, the rich ARE paying more, because they CAN pay more.

 

And as for the cost of room and board, its just about the same for everyone. A rich person lives in a 1/2 million dollar mansion, and a poor person in a trailer.

[Realitycheck]

"58% of Americans are for spreading the wealth, while 37% of americans are against it."

 

Why go against the grain? The rich of today have it really easy, way down from 70%, 80%, even 92% tax rate.

[bascule]

But society needs a caste system in order to survive. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they deserve to be rich, and the government shouldn't discriminate against you just because you have money.

 

If the poor people get up to middle class living standard than all that does it re-define the lower class.

 

Okay, I'm confused, because you started out like this:

 

They earned that money, it is theirs, it is fundamentally wrong to take it, just to supplement someone who doesn't work hard enough/isn't smart enough to get a better job.

 

Yet now you're defending a system which would make it even harder for the lower class to advance? The rich get richer and the poor get... children. Awesome. Shouldn't people who do try to get better jobs because they are smart be able to earn their way out of poverty?

 

And as for the cost of room and board, its just about the same for everyone. A rich person lives in a 1/2 million dollar mansion, and a poor person in a trailer.

 

So really quick, who do you think pays more for their living accommodations, the guy in the mansion or the guy in the trailer. Do you really think it's "about the same"?

[ParanoiA]

The rich get richer and the poor get... children. Awesome. Shouldn't people who do try to get better jobs because they are smart be able to earn their way out of poverty?

 

The poor getting...children, is a great example of why they don't deserve to be rich. They're poor as hell, and then they make a stupid decision like that. Or, more accurately, it's a decision that keeps them from maximizing their capital gain.

 

It's poor business IF your goal is to be rich, or have more money, to rise in class. It's a fine decision if your priority is to have children and enjoy them regardless of how it impacts your standard of living.

 

They're simply making the wrong decisions for the desired output. Why should that be rewarded? They made their decision. Let them live with it. No one is rescuing the businessman that risked his home mortgage and life savings only to fail at his business venture. Why? Because he made his decision, he knew the consequences, he took the risk, and it failed. People must take responsibility for their actions - and that goes for inaction as well.

[bascule]

Why should that be rewarded?

 

Please reread my post. The point is the system should not be structured with an enormous penalty in place after you hit a particular income ceiling, or people will get stuck there.

[Sisyphus]

We've seen it time and time again, you cannnot have everyone on the same page, there must be a caste system, but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair.

 

I'm not aware of anyone trying to get "everyone on the same page," except maybe actual communists and certain religious types. Is that who you're arguing against? Progressive taxes don't destroy the profit motive (and thus hard work and ingenuity). In fact, they make social mobility easier, thereby better rewarding people for working hard, not "punishing" them.

 

...but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair. And if it's a percentage based tax system, the rich ARE paying more, because they CAN pay more.

 

So a straight percentage is "fair?" Says who? Why should I pay more for my citizenship than someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? Because I CAN? Why, how pragmatically progressive of you...

[D H]

But society needs a caste system in order to survive.

That's a rather strong statement to make in a scientific forum without any backing. I would argue the other way around: A caste system is anathema to societal survival in the modern world. It most certainly is anathema to the underlying principles of the US, and I do have a reference to back up this claim:

We hold these truths to be self-evident' date=' that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote']

 

All men are not created equal in a caste system.

 

... but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair.

That, too, is a rather strong statement. I don't see the word "fair" or "fairness" anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. The word "fairness" is loaded with a lot of hidden meaning, and that hidden meaning depends on context and on who is beholding something to be fair or unfair. Closer to the topic of this thread, what constitutes "fairness" or lack thereof in taxation varies incredibly from one end of the political spectrum to the other.

 

... but the #1 concern of the government should be to be fair. And if it's a percentage based tax system, the rich ARE paying more, because they CAN pay more.[/quote']So a straight percentage is "fair?" Says who? Why should I pay more for my citizenship than someone who doesn't work as hard as I do? Because I CAN? Why, how pragmatically progressive of you...

Nice.

[Riogho]

I always considered fair to be a synonym of equal.

[D H]

I always considered fair to be a synonym of equal.

So I take that to mean you consider anything but an equal distribution of wealth to be unfair?

 

See how nasty that word is, and why you won't find it in the Constitution or in law?

[Severian]

All men are not created equal in a caste system.

 

Do you think all men are created equal in modern Western society?

[bascule]

Do you think all men are created equal in modern Western society?

 

Given knowledge of evolution and survival of the fittest, the idea that all men (or chickens, or cows) are created equal seems pretty ludicrous.

 

But the sentiment remains: we should bestow equal rights on all people. Everyone is deserving of basic human rights.

[iNow]

That's right. The intent of the statement is that all people are born with the same rights and allowances. No one is allowed some things just because of who they are or which family they are born into, while someone else is refused those rights because of a different background. The spirit suggests that all humans should be treated with equal application of the laws and provided with equal chances, not different due to skin color or religion or caste. It, of course, was never suggesting that we're all Michael Jordan or Albert Einstein.

 

None of that, however, changes the fact that the government takes our money and uses it for some greater good. The challenge, as evidenced by this thread and others, is the disagreement about how to define "greater good."