Redistribution of Wealth

[padren]

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."

 

And, how much money to take. On the whole, it's reasonably fair, as we live in a democracy to determine those numbers and programs, at the same time we really only have "faith in fellow citizens" that "the many" don't vote to effectively take more than is reasonable from "the few" who are rich.

[Realitycheck]

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."

 

The greater good is luck and survival of the fittest. Why can't you see this?

[iNow]

The greater good is luck and survival of the fittest. Why can't you see this?

 

Fit in terms of physics or math abilities?

Fit in terms of cardiovascular or musculature ability?

Fit in terms of being able to make money?

Fit in terms of being able to find water?

Fit in terms of being able to grow food?

Fit in terms of being able to repair mechanical items?

 

 

I could keep going. While I think you were probably joking somewhat in your post, I wanted to make clear that "fitness" is not some objective term like 700 nanometers is.

[JohnB]

The answer is quite simple. Don't tax income, tax expenditure.

 

I've liked the Debit Tax idea since I first heard of it 20 years ago.

 

Being based on a "Spender Pays" principle, those who spend the most, pay the most tax. This is equitable because those who spend the most, have the most to spend. It also does away with a whole gamut of tax dodges as the tax doesn't care who spent the money.

 

In the Australian example, (and while the website is old, I have seen more recent figures) a .33% tax levied on withdrawals and fund transfers would more than equal the total tax take of the Commonwealth and the States combined. IOW, we could get rid of all other taxes.

 

I'm sure the system could be adapted to other nations and their systems.

 

When you consider that the current Australian legislation contains this little beauty, anything would be an improvement.

 

Goods and Services Tax Legislation Section 165-55;

165-55: The Commissioner may disregard a scheme in making declarations for the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

 

a) Treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

 

b) Treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

 

i) Having happened at a particular time; and

 

ii) Having involved a particular action by a particular entity; and

 

c) Treat a particular event that actually happened as:

 

i) Having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

 

ii) Having involved a particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

 

I particularly like c) ii). You are guilty if they say you are, whether or not you were actually involved.

Edited November 2, 2008 by JohnB

[Severian]

That's right. The intent of the statement is that all people are born with the same rights and allowances.

 

And do you think this is true in the West?

[john5746]

And do you think this is true in the West?

 

In terms of life an liberty, I think so. Even in terms of pursuit of happiness, maybe.

 

Don't we really just have a giant game of Monopoly, where we want people to have an incentive to pass Go and grow the wealth in the game, but we don't want a few to actually win and everyone else quit playing?

[D H]

All men are not created equal in a caste system.

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

That's right. The intent of the statement is that all people are born with the same rights and allowances.[/quote']And do you think this is true in the West?

That is the intent (maybe not the "allowances"; I don't know what iNow meant by that) and it is not the intent in a caste society.

[iNow]

Just a poor choice of words on my part. Sorry for that. I suppose I was trying to say that someone cannot be restricted based on where they are born or whom they are born to. Being born human means you are allowed equal application of the laws as any and all other humans. While realistically we all fit slightly different niches in life, those niches cannot be imposed on us by our governing body nor by legislated codes and law.

 

 

Severian - I think, however, you are asking a more subtle question, and TBH I'm still thinking on it and pondering (I'm not ignoring you, just haven't arrived upon an answer yet). My mind keeps drifting toward how significantly the law can be bent when one has money and high-priced lawyers on their side...

[ecoli]

Severian - I think, however, you are asking a more subtle question, and TBH I'm still thinking on it and pondering (I'm not ignoring you, just haven't arrived upon an answer yet). My mind keeps drifting toward how significantly the law can be bent when one has money and high-priced lawyers on their side...

It's probable that tax code needs to be revised in order to stop what amounts to legal fraud. But I don't think that changes the philosophical discussion taking place here.

 

 

Here's an important question: are redistributive policies beneficial to national and personal longterm financial wealth? Lets forget about things like short term unemployment for the time being and consider what whould happen if Obama got elected and then went insane, and managed to pass massive redistribusion legislation via large taxes on the top 50% and writing checks to the bottom 50.

 

Obviously, in this scenario, we couldn't expect capiltalism to work, since entrepenuers wouldn't be able to fund interprises. The purchases of luxury items would stop, which would stifle innovation (today's luxuries are tomorrow's necessities).

 

At what point, if there is one, are redistribution policies more beneficial than they are harmful? And, who would actually benefit from getting redistribution checks, and how much would they "need"?

 

Personally, I believe that "spreading the wealth around" is against the spirit of the constitution, but I'm interested to know what other people think.

[Mr Skeptic]

At the other end of the scale, we can end up with something like feudalism. When the very rich control the means of production (which in the old days was land, since agriculture was the main enterprise), they can charge the poor who do not have a means of production anything they want for use of the means of production. So the poor work for the profit of the rich, and if they produce more, the rich owners can simply raise the amount owed. Since the poor need to eat, they must work even under such unfair conditions. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer or stay poor. Progressive taxation is one way to counter this, to put a limit on how easy it is to get richer when you already have plenty of wealth.

[iNow]

At what point, if there is one, are redistribution policies more beneficial than they are harmful? And, who would actually benefit from getting redistribution checks, and how much would they "need"?

 

There is no specific line of demarcation for where this distinction occurs, no polarized binary state, but instead a very broad, fuzzy, gray, subjective spectrum of interpretations which depend on who you ask, when you ask them, and how they wish to be perceived by you as the questioner.

[D H]

Here's an important question: are redistributive policies beneficial to national and personal longterm financial wealth?

There are several countries natural resources that rival those of the first world nations nations but remain developing nations at best because they are either too socialistic or too plutocratic. The first world nations have attained their status because they have achieved some kind of balance between socialism and plutocracy.

[ecoli]

At the other end of the scale, we can end up with something like feudalism. When the very rich control the means of production (which in the old days was land, since agriculture was the main enterprise), they can charge the poor who do not have a means of production anything they want for use of the means of production. So the poor work for the profit of the rich, and if they produce more, the rich owners can simply raise the amount owed. Since the poor need to eat, they must work even under such unfair conditions. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer or stay poor. Progressive taxation is one way to counter this, to put a limit on how easy it is to get richer when you already have plenty of wealth.

 

I don't think feudalism is at the other end, at least not in a free society where anyone with a good idea can raise capital to start a business. That was hardly true in middle evil feudal societies and not true in today's feudal-like societies.

 

There are several countries natural resources that rival those of the first world nations nations but remain developing nations at best because they are either too socialistic or too plutocratic. The first world nations have attained their status because they have achieved some kind of balance between socialism and plutocracy.

Those people are only able to stay in power because of their control over those resources (because the West has such high demand for them). I don't think you necessarily need socialism to protect these people. You need a government that ensures entrepreneurs can enter the market and undermine would-be oppressive monopolies (or governments, in this case) through providing consumers a better idea.

[JohnB]

There are several countries natural resources that rival those of the first world nations nations but remain developing nations at best because they are either too socialistic or too plutocratic. The first world nations have attained their status because they have achieved some kind of balance between socialism and plutocracy.

You don't think all the guns we sell them and the training we give their militaries might have something to do with the lack of development?

 

Or the fact that it's in our best interest for them to stay undeveloped as that keeps the wages bill down and makes more money for our companies has nothing to do with it?

 

And the west wonders why the people of some nations don't like us very much.

[D H]

You don't think all the guns we sell them and the training we give their militaries might have something to do with the lack of development?

We sell guns to and train the militaries of Zimbabwe? North Korea? Somalia? Myanmar? That's news to me!

 

Or the fact that it's in our best interest for them to stay undeveloped as that keeps the wages bill down and makes more money for our companies has nothing to do with it?

Exactly which of the world's failed states do our companies (and they aren't "our" companies; the biggest companies are multinationals) profit from?

 

It is not in the best interest of our country or "our" companies for any nation to have a completely failed political/social/economic system.

 

And the west wonders why the people of some nations don't like us very much.

Rather than hating America first, maybe you should open your rolled eyes.

 

The world's emerging markets are Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. Many of these countries have albatrosses around their necks of their own making that have retarded their advancement. Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico have abundant natural resources and a fairly well-educated populace, but like the state of Louisiana, are saddled with a Spanish/Portuguese legal system. China, Russia, and Poland are/were restrained by communism. India, Indonesia, and the Philippines have overly huge populations, and India has a caste system to boot.

[Sisyphus]

...where anyone with a good idea can raise capital to start a business.

 

And that is precisely the idea behind progressive taxation and "spreading the wealth." The innovative people are the ones who have enough wealth that they can afford risk. Minimizing burden on the low end encourages experimentation and innovation in more people, and helps capitalism do its thing.

[Riogho]

The problem with the progessive taxation is defining who is rich and who isn't.

 

Obama says 300k - 250k is rich, Joe Biden says 150k is defined as rich, and Bill Richardson says that 120k is defined as rich.

 

I don't know about you, but where I live (west virginia, very rural area), 120 thousand is very well off. However, 120 thousand and a family of 4 living in New York City isn't rich by any definition of the word.

 

Thats why it'd be so hard to decide where to redistribute the wealth, etc.

 

That is why in the mind of the constituion, that people should make their own life for them (if they choose to live in NYC, so be it, or if they choose to have 50 kids, so be it), but you shouldn't reward them because of those choices, or hinder them either.

[Sisyphus]

Why would you have to define who is rich and who isn't?

[Mr Skeptic]

Interesting point, Riogho. This would make progressive taxation an extra burden on those who live in high cost of living areas. Do you know if this is accounted for somehow in our current tax codes?

[Pangloss]

Actually in his half-hour infomercial Obama seemed to have lowered the "rich" point to an even $200,000. It seems to have been gradually working its way down during the campaign, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, except perhaps honest realization of the depth of the economic crisis.

[jackson33]

Would some one explain to me, what the person income has to do with taxes in the first place. One person with a family of five, house payments, medical expenses, already pays little of nothing on a Gross wage of 250k, where a single person will likely pay the max. Income and tax brackets based on 'Income after deduction' have no commonality.

 

There is nothing rich about a couple earning 250k living in NYC, while 250k in Hobbs NM would be very rich. Might add thats exaggerated by the local taxes paid in NYC or that of Hobbs...

[bascule]

Actually in his half-hour infomercial Obama seemed to have lowered the "rich" point to an even $200,000.

 

I think the confusion arises from how Obama's plan is structured. Households making $200,000 - $250,000 per year will see no tax increase or decrease. Ones making less than $200,000 a year will see a tax cut. Those making more than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase.

 

So it's not that Obama lowered the "rich point", it's just that people making $200,000 - $250,000 per year won't see a tax cut. But then again, they won't see a tax increase either.

 

As for Biden saying $150,000, no comment. Have I mentioned I don't like Biden very much?

[Riogho]

They've been doing a pretty good job of Hidin Biden, but he slips out every once and awhile .

[foodchain]

They've been doing a pretty good job of Hidin Biden, but he slips out every once and awhile .

 

I hope the democratic V.P pick signifies some unity within the party rather then some dynamic duo. Maybe its just me favoring larger groups making decisions. Anyways, as far as viable V.P picks are concerned I give it to Obama over McCain.

[Pangloss]

I think the confusion arises from how Obama's plan is structured. Households making $200,000 - $250,000 per year will see no tax increase or decrease. Ones making less than $200,000 a year will see a tax cut. Those making more than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase.

 

So it's not that Obama lowered the "rich point", it's just that people making $200,000 - $250,000 per year won't see a tax cut. But then again, they won't see a tax increase either.

 

As for Biden saying $150,000, no comment. Have I mentioned I don't like Biden very much?

 

Thank you for clarifying that; I missed that completely. I don't have his program on my Tivo anymore but I assume that's how he put it, so I guess the goalposts aren't moving after all. Good catch.