Can someone splain why wealth distribution is a good thing?

[OmegaBob]

Can someone explain to me why the redistribution of wealth is a good idea?

IMO, if I work for my monies, after paying taxes, the rest is mine to keep. I do not want my taxes raised (which ALL Democrats do once they get into office), then that extra money distributed amongst those who do not even pay any taxes to begin with!

If I and a few others earned an A in class, while everyone else between a B to failing grades, would it be OK for the teachers to distribute the grades so everyone, including me, gets a C !?!?

Total whack job or… Marxism FTW!

Side note: I enjoy how this entire economic mess is being blamed on the Republicans. Let’s see… didn’t the Demos take control a few years ago? Didn’t they promise change too? People seemed to have forgotten about that. I say let the mortgage companies fail and foreclose on anyone who stupidly purchased a home they couldn’t afford. Clinton, Franks are at fault (as well as Bush and a few others for not warning us). Let them fail.

[Chip]

wealth distribution is just a PC way of saying they will steal your money and give it to someone else.

[Katie]

I remember learning it in economics why we needed to have a large middle class. I know even they we were told the gap between the poor and rich was widening because there were fewer middle class workers. All I remember is apparently this is really bad, and where it's happened before things went sour. Apparently that's why they are trying to even things out.

I do think it's very wrong to give huge tax cuts just to the rich. I hate paying taxes just as much as the next person, but letting the rich get a bigger break while I'm struggling already and I get no break is just wrong.

Also when Bill Clinton left the office, there was a surplus, the first one in many years. Bush put us in major debt in the first couple of years.

[Alaric]

No, Chip, stealing is done secretly. This is quite obviously a robbery as opposed to theft.

[Chip]

I stand corrected.


http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

[Kosmo]

I am so down with that tax plan, Chip. Can you imagine the pleasure of watching all those IRS offices shuttered up, or turned into Halloween haunted houses, whatever?

I've been in favor of a sales-tax based solution to the income tax policy for years.

The one area in this whole conversation I'd have some disagreement with you, Chip, is that as a pinko commie homo liberal, I do think that to a certain sensible degree those who are strong sometimes have to help those who are weak. While I dislike welfare moms with multiple kids as much as anyone, I DO think we need some sort of safety net for those most in need of help.

[Angus McFeargus]

Flat Tax Flat Tax Flat Tax!

[Kosmo]

I've heard flat tax is much harder on the poorest people than a sales tax, but I don't know why because, again, I'm an economic pinhead.

[anthonyX]

hell ya FLAT TAX!

[Angus McFeargus]

I honestly dunno, Kosmo. Seems to me that 15% of nothing doesn't come out to all that much... :/

[Alaric]

I'd contribute any reasonable effort to a flat tax proposal.

In other news, I think that helping others (i.e. charity) should be voluntary. Being required by law to give to panhandlers and their equivalents seems way too extreme for me.

[kyleh]

As I've said many times I can't with good concience support a flat tax, it only benefits the rich. Especially considering that the poor don't pay taxes. I think Americans have completely lost touch with what it means to be poor. American homeless people have more opportunities than people in the non-existant middle class in a country like Mexico.

Wealth distribution itself though works on the theory that people work hard because they have some sense of honor or something, and that everybody will continue to do high quality work for no compensation because it helps the greater good. (The Greater Good!)

Basically idealistic hippy talk.

[stingray]

Can someone explain to me why the redistribution of wealth is a good idea?
With trillions of deficit, I don't know what you are talking about... who and where? If you are talking about the financial bail out package, well, you'll still need some working banks to be able to spend that money.

If I and a few others earned an A in class, while everyone else between a B to failing grades, would it be OK for the teachers to distribute the grades so everyone, including me, gets a C !?!?In the end you'll discover that you can't eat grades. :D

FranksIt's FRANK, dammit! :roflmao:

[BulletCatcher]

I've heard flat tax is much harder on the poorest people than a sales tax, but I don't know why because, again, I'm an economic pinhead.

Basically (very basically in fact), it comes down to the percentage of your income that you need to cover the basic costs of living.

Say the basic cost of living expenses (food, shelter, clothing etc...) is $700 per month and you make $1000 per month. That is 70% of your income going just to cover the basics leaving you with $300 to cover other expenses and emergencies. For someone making $1500 its 47% with $800 left over, $2000 it's 35% with $1300 left and so on. Now say you add a flat tax of 10% for everyone. Now your left with $200, $650 and $1100 respectivly. For the lowest paid, you will be losing 80% of your income just to cover your basic needs and taxes leaving you very little to spend on other things. As you make more money, a smaller percentage of your overall income is needed to cover everything leaving you more money to improve your standard of living. That 10% affects the lower income earners much more than the higher.

[Alaric]

That's not true. It would be true if we were to assume that all people spend the same amount of money on living expenses. In reality, the more you make the more you spend on food, clothing and shelter. For example when I first moved out, my income was x and my rent was 22% of that. Now, my income is 1.5x and my mortgage is 29% of the new income.

[BulletCatcher]

True, what I wrote is assuming all things are equal for basic living expenses.

People do spend more for the basics when they make more but by doing so they generally improve their standard of living. When you moved from renting what I assume was an apartment to buying a house, it was to improve your standard of living. You are paying more because you choose to and are able to, not because you have to. You make more so you can afford more than just the basic accomodations. You pay what you are comfortable in paying for what you have. For a lower income individual though, they do not always have that choice. Just paying for the basics takes a much bigger percentage out of their income than yours leaving them little upon which to improve their standard of living. To pay the same 10% in taxes as you hurts them more.

[kyleh]

That's not true. It would be true if we were to assume that all people spend the same amount of money on living expenses. In reality, the more you make the more you spend on food, clothing and shelter. For example when I first moved out, my income was x and my rent was 22% of that. Now, my income is 1.5x and my mortgage is 29% of the new income.

That's not necessarily true. When I first moved out of my parent's house, my rent was about 40% of my monthly income. Now my mortgage is about 9% of my household monthly income, not even factoring in the equity that I build with every payment. Your assumption is that making more money requires you to increase your standard of living by an equal or greater amount, which isn't true. The basics that a person needs to live don't change. What people want and what people need are two different things, if more people knew that we wouldn't be having financial problems.

[Alaric]

I admit, there is truth in that, however, let's not forget that the distinction between need and want is a blurry one. In actuality, what we need is a sharp rock. The rest is optional and merely increases the standard of living.

[kyleh]

No, the need is food, protection from the elements, and shelter. How you get it and what you get depends on what you have and what you can do. It's a very simple system.

[Kosmo]

Kyleh, can I have your mortgage?

[Alaric]

You want his mortgage because it's 9% of his income? Hmm... either you know how much he makes or you don't know what percentages are. =)

[Kosmo]

Don't know what percentages are? I'm dim, but not that dim. I don't know anyone in LA who's mortgage is that small a percentage of their income. If I could do that, I'd be a homeowner in a minute. The mortgage I'd be likely to pay here in LA would be more like 50-60% of my monthly income. It's why I don't have one.

I'm a contractor, so my income varies wildly. But if my mortgage was 9% of my VERY BEST monthly intake, it would be $700 less than my current rent.

Maybe I'll move to Kyleh's town.

[Alaric]

Oh, I didn't know you were from LA. =) I hear it's pretty bad there as far as prices go. And even worth in SF. Although Chi and NY are also quite crummy in that sense.

Well, thanks to the current "crisis" (which I call a tax on people who are bad at math) things are looking good for those of us who passed basic arithmetic. Prices are going down! Woot!

[kyleh]

Kyleh, can I have your mortgage?

Heh, not in LA you can't. Although I'm sure some of the big studio folks in LA have a lot more than I do at a lot lower percentage of thier income. :D

Shoot, in LA I wouldn't even be able to survive on what we make. I'm too fragile for Compton.

[MicheleWhite]

From a credit standpoint, housing payments were "supposed" to roughly fall into the 25-30% range of one's income, unless you had a hefty enough down payment to qualify. When those rules began to get disregarded, is when the system started to crumble resulting in those wonderfull interest only loans that were dependant on a consistent increase in housing values. As a "safe player", I'm comfortable with my 22% mortgage expenditure, and can't understand why anyone would buy more house than they can reasonably afford, except in cases where there's nothing else to purchase due to one being at the absolute low end of the spectrum. Those are the people that can ill afford the flat tax.

[Chip]

Which is why a consumption tax would be better.

[MicheleWhite]

Concur - if you're not out there blowing all of your cash, it won't affect you...BUT what happens in the states where EVERYTHING is already taxed at nearly 10%, including my favorite new tax "health care use"?

[kyleh]

A consumption tax is bad too. People who have the means to buy the most luxury goods could just import things. That is unless you are going to increase export taxes as well, which drives up the price of all goods.

If you make ite import tax conditional, then you have the same system that we have now that is apparently too complicated for everybody.

[Chip]

Did you read the info on fair tax?

[Kosmo]

Moving to Kyleh's town.

[Alaric]

Kyleh's town is not without a problem either. There's this one dude living there - Mr. Howard. I hear he's pretty scary. :eek:

[Angus McFeargus]

I live in Austin, too. And I've met this "Mr. Howard" on more than one occasion.

One does not walk away from such a meeting unchanged.

[Kosmo]

Austin Texas? Minnesota?

I love Austin. Did a lot of theater and waited on a lot of tables there. Also have a sister there. Grew up in Bryan.

[kyleh]

Austin, Texas, yah.

I read the fair tax stuff, doesn't look like it would work. Income tax is just part of the taxes that are being gathered, so I don't see how paying a lower income tax and abolishing all of the other ones is going to help the deficit/budget shortfalls.

I'm still also very unclear what would prevent rich folks from importing rather than buying locally, which would hurt the economy badly. If you raise duty fees to prevent that, then you hurt all businesses that rely in any way on foreign goods, which also hurts the economy.

What I see happening if the fair tax is implemented is rich peeps import everything, especially the big ticket items that would bring in the most tax money. Peeps who can't afford to import cars and stuff like that continue getting screwed. Soon, gubmint decides it's not making enough money, so they start raising taxes and implementing new rules and new taxes again on top of the fair tax. It wouldn't take long for it to get too comlpicated for peeps again, which apparently isn't that hard to do since taxes aren't really all that complicated now for an individual taxpayer.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

[OmegaBob]

Just heard on the radio that some small business owners are planning on not giving Mr Obama any extra money if he is elected President. The plan is to make sure they do not make over $250k.

The way they will impliment it will be to:
1 - lay off workers
2 - no new hires
3 - reduce the amount of days they are open/work
4 - reduce the amount of supplies they need to purchase

Yay!

Welcome to the Socialist States of America! New World Order FTW!

[Chip]

Just heard on the radio that some small business owners are planning on not giving Mr Obama any extra money if he is elected President. The plan is to make sure they do not make over $250k.

The way they will impliment it will be to:
1 - lay off workers
2 - no new hires
3 - reduce the amount of days they are open/work
4 - reduce the amount of supplies they need to purchase

Yay!

Welcome to the Socialist States of America! New World Order FTW!

Could always do what my doctor, who is now in prison, do. Put seperate accounts in teh wife's name.