The much talked about Redistributor in Chief took place in 1981 when Reagan took the progressive tax structure on the wealthy from 70% down to 28%, the inevitable consequence of which simply brought into reality the adage the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The additional bonus was the rise in numerous tax shelters to the point that true earnings were distorted. and to rub it in, investors looked to cheap foreign labor to enrich themselves further. Meanwhile in Washington union busting prevailed and living wages began to tank, roiling redistribution even more .
That's bull, more money is more money a better job is a better job, the only way this would have any truth is if you put a 100% tax on what you earned after a point. If you add a 5% tax to someone's income they still have the same choice, work less = less money, work more = more money.
Assuming their time is worth nothing to them and that they have an infinite amount of it.
I can tell you that I value my free hours and if taxes are too high I would work less if instead of making X per hour I'd make Y per hour, with Y being X after the new taxes and Y being below the amount I value my time at.
Don't call things "bull" if you don't understand them!
You have a selective definition of the term "redistribution of the wealth". Money and services are interchangeable, discounting or providing a service or a product for someone that doesn't pay their share because they can't afford it is "wealth redistribution", it's just not the definition or the use you have a problem with.
All definitions are selective. That's what a "definition" is. His definition of "redistribution of wealth" is very precise.
That blasted edit button is not working. Please ignore the comma in the first sentence.
I see that none of you conservatives, are actually dealing with the problem of lower taxes as Larry pointed out, as I have pointed out in far too many posts. When you reduce your income you cannot pay your bills. Its not rocket science.
Sodaiho, the fact that you DISAGREE with the theory that lowering taxes can actually increase government income (because it stimulates the economy) doesn't mean that conservatives don't address the "problem".
In fact the "problem" only exists when one confuses relative and absolutel numbers. While 10% of X is less than 20% of X, it is not necessarily less than 20% of Y, with Y being a number greater or smaller than X.
The "problem of lower taxes" exists when taxes are lower in absolute terms.
I like word games myself, but I don't think they are a substitute for a point.
But by taking the term "lower taxes" and pretending that it refers to an absolute number, even though conservatives argue that a lowe tax rate will actually result in higher tax income IS a word game.
So, how do you Mr. Conservative, plan to reduce the trillion dollar deficit?
I am myself not convinced that a deficit is a bad thing. Governments can borrow money for far better conditions than anybody else.
No you don't understand what I was responding to. taltamir said "Heavier taxation of individuals making more money decreases the incentive to make more money", that's a broad erroneous assumption on on what motivates people and how the wealthy would respond to a tax increase. Some would expand their business to make their time more valuable. Some might cut spending. I think a very small percentage would simply accept less income and even cut it further by working less like you, and a tax increase does not change the incentives for education, even if your only incentive is more money.
No Leauki, narrowing the definition to include only one form of wealth distribution is not more precise. Just like narrowing the definition of taxes to only include income tax is not more precise.
Hey, I'm all for what is called "redistribution" although, I would simply call it "distribution"
But no matter. Whatever you choose to call it really isn't important. A rose by any other name, right?
But here's the point behind "distribution", and it's one that was figured out quite well by a capitalist.
Henry Ford realized that the ideal situation both for himself and his company would be if his own workers could afford to buy the products they were making. So, on a purely hypothetical basis let's say his personal take home profit was 20 million dollars, but if he cut that to 15 or 10 million dollars and upped his workers wages, they could all buy brand new model-T's (or whatever) and probably at the same time, if they saved responsibly, scrape together enough for a downpayment on a home in their town.
So, Mr. Ford personally takes a cut to his profit. But his company sees increased sales, his workers are happier and more productive, therefore increasing his company's productivity, and his shareholders are happier that the company's making a healthier profit AND more productive, and this has the added bonus of attracting more investors.
On top of it, the town is very happy with Ford as all the Ford factory workers are buying houses and adding to the municipalities revenue through property taxes and the like, meaning that the town can afford to pave the roads and upgrade their water treatment system (both of which benefit Ford indirectly anyway) All of the other businesses in town also benefit from the fact that Mr. Ford's workers are making more money because they are spending that money directly in the local economy on goods and services in the town (they aren't squirelling it away in swiss bank accounts!) So this causes other businesses to grow in town, and some of the employees of those businesses end up buying even more model-T's from Ford!
You see, Mr. Ford has learned the lesson that if more people can afford to buy his product and the local economy is better off, it will come back to benefit his company immensely or even cycle the money back to him indirectly (increased sales bring more investors, etc)
So, everyone can win, if we just go by the basic rule we supposedly learned in Kindergarten to share our toys.
The importance of this kind of "distribution" of wealth cannot be underestimated as it has many far-reaching implications.
When all of Mr. Ford's factory workers can afford a car, a house, and still put a little money in the bank...not going into debt... that means they're secure and happy, not living paycheque to paycheque. This does wonders for the community, and means that the children of the Ford factory workers will probably get a decent education and good upbringing (usually when parents are happy so are kids). The Ford factory workers themselves, now that they are not worrying about taking out a predatory payday loan to pay the light bill, will probably get a little more active in politics whether at the municipal, state or federal level.
This goes back to the whole educated citizenry thing. When people have the time and aren't worrying about survival, they generally tend to improve themselves. When people improve themselves everyone benefits. As Mr. Ford's workers improve themselves, not only are they happier but perhaps they are more innovative on the job and come up with some creative ways to increase production. Going one step further, many of his brighter employees will be prime candidates for manager positions a few years down the road, which will be easier on Ford as it won't have to bring in someone from outside the company and get them established in town.
But anywho. Let's zoom out for a moment- this goes back to a basic law of nature. Any system, whether it be an organism or weather system, does it's best when at equilibrium. All systems in nature attempt to reach and maintain equilibrium.
What is equilibrium?
It's more or less a sustainable distribution of energy. If you'll harken back to your days in high school math (or if you took physics or electronics) life is a sine wave. It always has and always will be!
Society functions best when as much of the waveform as possible is above the poverty line... if you have too much power concentrated in only a few hands, you end up getting something called a pure carrier, which is a graph that has a very, very sharply steeped curve that rises very far while pretty much everything else is down at the noise floor. If you distribute the energy, you have the bulk of the populace doing good, with a little bit at the top and a little bit at the bottom with everyone else in the middle- the middle class! Overall, the peak of the carrier ends up being much lower than a pure carrier, but this leads to the question-
What situation results in society being better off?
1) Are we better off if most of the power is concentrated in a few hands while everyone else gets almost nothing?
2) Are we better off if the power is distributed more or less equally. Yes, there is still a "top" but it is considerably lower than if all the power was concentrated, whereas more people are better educated and generally well off.
If wealth is not "distributed" or redistributed or whatever you want to call it, then we will eventually end up back in a Feudal society in which the have's live in castles while the have-nots end up doing all the work and fighting wars between fiefs on behalf of the haves!
If wealth is not distributed then we will go back to the days of debtor prisons and company towns in which the workers are forever beholden to the company store for their entire lives....coal mining towns from the 19th century anyone?
No you don't understand what I was responding to. taltamir said "Heavier taxation of individuals making more money decreases the incentive to make more money", that's a broad erroneous assumption on on what motivates people and how the wealthy would respond to a tax increase
Actually, if you had read my complete reply you would know that I did understand what you were responding to.
Taltamir was absolutely right.
And I stand by what I said:
Now, do you have anything to add to that?
He wasn't narrowing the definition. He just gave a definition.
"Redistribution" is a form of "distribution".
What's your problem with his definition? Cannot use it for propaganda?
Arty, you are referring to people trading labour for money and goods for money voluntarily. That is not what we are discussing here.
If anybody has a better definition, please speak up.
But it sounds rational to me that "redistribution of wealth" is the act of X taking money from Y to give to Z.
I apologize for any confusion.
I was using the analogy of a hypothetical Mr. Ford and his factory workers to illustrate that if wealth is distributed between a larger segment of the populace, society benefits more than the "king of the hill" model in which a small number of people sit at the top of a massive hill and "trickle down" a few crumbs to those at the bottom.
Since we can only expect to function reasonably as a society of laws and NOT a society of men, the distribution of wealth needs to be legislated, not left to volunary means. This works both ways as it protects BOTH parties as opposed to leaving this distribution to the whims of a rabid marxist who would redistribute every last cent equally between working and non-working folk and a robber-baron capitalist who would go by the "winner take all" mentality in which the CEO takes home a cool hundred million paycheque and lives in a gated mansion while the surrounding town is a barrio!
Yes, voluntary is fine but there are very few Mr. Fords and very many Jeff Skilling's and Ken Lay's.
Since we can only expect to function reasonably as a society of laws and NOT a society of men, the distribution of wealth needs to be legislated, not left to volunary means.
Do you expect people to submit voluntarily to such a system?
Wealth redistribution includes any benefit someone receives at the expense of others, even if it's just at a state level. If my money pays for a school or a park for people that didn't pay anything you have x taking money from y to give to z. Even if you had flat tax the wealthy would still be having money taken from them and given to others.
You, taltamir and others are narrowing the term to only include an increase in the level of wealth distribution by the increase of the progressive tax system. That is only part of the definition and the one who's ignoring the complete meaning of a term is the one is the one trying to make that term fit their agenda.
There are strong arguments on both sides of the flat tax progressive tax argument. The tipping point for me is a flat tax increases an already increasing wealth divide and I and others have explained why we feel that is bad for our society.
That's just hyperbole.
I did respond, I said most would choose not to make even less than resulted from the tax increase.
Yes. And your point is?
You, taltamir and others are narrowing the term to only include an increase in the level of wealth distribution by the increase of the progressive tax system.
What?
Unfortunately that is not true.
No. And no one has come up with a good reason why they should.
No, it is the truth. It is the time value. If I get $100 for the first 40 hours a week I work, but only $20 for each additional hour, I am going to do other things with my time than waste it working. It is basic economics.
No they are not. Try spending your drivers license.
And beleive it or not they were smart enough to realize that, and provide for it. That is why we have 27 amendments to the document they created. There is a right way and a wrong way. The wrong way (I know this is going to come as a shock) is never the right way.
Hold spending (note not cut - but to liberals that means a cut) at a fixed level and let revenues catch up. The problem is not too few taxes, but too much spending. A foreign concept to many I am sure.
There are strong arguments on both sides of the flat tax progressive tax argument.
There might be, but what does it have to do with what the taxes are used for?
And I am absolutely right, it does decrease the incensitive. Will it decrease it enough to make everyone work less? no, but it will make SOME people work less. How many depends on how much you increase it. hence "lower incentive" and not "destroy the incentive".
You seem to not grasp what redistribute means. If I am taxed more lightly then a richer person for a service we both receive, say police protection, and we receive it to differing amounts, and the government has a legal monopoly on that service, then no redistribution occured. Every USAGE of funds is technically a DISTRIBUTION of funds... Redistribution of wealth means the government takes MONEY from party A and give to party B. "Distribution of WEALTH" as you call it can only be used on a graph to show how much money each person has (like the one posted earlier); so I am a bit baffled why you decided to change its definition to mean redistribution of wealth and redifining that as taking less from the rich then you did before (but still more overall) and use it to provide a service to everyone..
It shocks many.
Quote of the day .
Here is a better one, try spending "local police budget per citizen" / "college subsidy" on beer and smokes.
If the rich are taxed more heavily to provide better police protection it is quite different then if they are taxed more heavily to give someone a check.
Or maybe they're motivated to find a way to make that 40 hrs worth a $110 an hr.
It is irrelevant whether or not I can spend it, if someone pays for anything that I need that means I don't have to pay for it. Money saved is money gained.
You guys seem to be hung up on only including direct transfers of cash as a means of redistribution. You act like Obama is going to enact this new policy instead of just an increase in an existing one.
Again deciding how much taxes and what they're used for is what the election is all about.
What? that statement has nothing to do with taxation.
No, we are just disturbed by the need to HIDE and lie about it as if obama and his supporters KNOW it is wrong. It would be a lot less disturbing if they didn't juggle words but instead tried to explain why they support such a notion.
Simple enough - it's our patriotic duty. Just like it was the serfs' patriotic duty to farm for the Czar. Just like it was the patriotic duty of every Chinese to carry a Little Red Book during Mao's dictatorship. Nothing wrong with it, after all, it's just our duty.
Motivated perhaps.... but I found it extremely difficult to make my hours worth more to other people. Working more hours is the easiest method of making more money. But each additional hour of mine I sell should bring in more rather than less money.
A regressive tax system might do the trick, but then people would be encouraged to work more hours, which cannot be good for their health either.
I would leave it up to the individual. A flat income tax or no income tax at all would remove all government encouragement to destroy either one's health or the economy and a balance would result from market forces.
First, it would be true if someone else is footing your bill instead of you. However services are not all structured that way, and most are not. You cant get out of paying for your drivers license, and you cant use it for buying food.
Second, no, most of us are well aware that what Obama is doing is not new. But like a little bit of thiamin is good for you, too much is fatal. Obama wants us to OD on it.
Leauki,
In theory this is good, a flat income tax is one of the main sticking points that Milton Friedman always advocated.
However...
In just about every case where a flat income tax has been implemented, across the board, the effects have been pretty disastrous for most and advantageous for a few.
This hasn't been implemented in many G8 countries but it has in many south/central american and a few asian countries as well.
Just about any nation that got suckered by the IMF had one of their pre-conditions for loans that they abolish their current taxation system and go to a minimal, flat tax across the board (with almost no taxes for business, which theoretically is a very good thing too!)
So, what hapenned in all of these cases?
Government revenue fell so much that just about all social spending had to be cut. This meant that these countries went entirely to a 'pay as you go' system.
In short, since the government had no money to provide adequate public education, road construction, food subsidies and healthcare, everything got taken over by the private sector.
For those who had lots of money, which was less than 20% of the average population, life was good as they could afford it.
What about the 'average joe'?
In Chile in the 70's, the cost of bread and cooking oil for one month for one adult ended up costing more than 25 % of their monthly income. Previously those two items had been protected by government price controls so average folks could afford to eat.
Healthcare became nonexistent unless you could afford the gold-plated treatment of privatized for profit clinics. When one quarter of your entire income is going just to pay for bread for yourself (not counting your kids or other dependents) that goes out the window.
Many people who didn't have cars and depended on public transit saw a massive amount of their income go just to pay for their daily commute to work as the transit system was privatized and the prices jacked up massively.
In fact, the only government institution in these countries that WASN'T reduced and actually increased was military spending, almost all of which went to 'counter-terrorism' which is a mask for quashing the massive domestic unrest that resulted from the fact that more than half the population went from a livable quality of life to squallor almost overnight.
Again, this goes back to the king of the hill system.
Instituting minimal flat taxes helps create this system as you end up getting a small number of very well off at the top saying "I am king!! All hail me!!!" who then trickle down a few crumbs to those at the bottom.
We must have read different newspapers again, because the only countries that I know that have implemented a flat tax are in eastern Europe (with very few exceptions). No countries in south America (except Guyana and one other I believe) and no countries in Asia (except those of of the former Soviet Union) have implemented a flat tax.
The east-European countries that implemented flat tax are experiencing massive economic growth. Lithuania and Estonia come to mind. Unemployment went down and tax revenue actually went up. Hungary, Poland, and Greece are considering introducing a flat tax system.
Russia is the only G8 country with a flat tax.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
