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 .
So you are basically telling us that you use the word "redistribution" not for the act of redistributing wealth from X to Y but for the act of refraining from doing so?
Can you maybe explain why redistribution of wealth is good or necessary rather than redefine the word?
Hi Leauki,
You are opposed to taxes, I believe? In the US there was a time when we had no income tax. The cost of doing business asw a nation, however, became so great that we needed a way to pay for those costs. Hence Income Tax. We tend to ague over what those costs should be, at what level of government they should be incurred, and how those costs should be distributed across the citizenry.
A structure was made. From that point on, any change is a redistribution of that baseline.
steve is not redfining the word.
Be well.
And you think 70% was "fair"....is that your point?
Hello Again,
Yes. No. Yes. Here is the point of basic contention and it is one that I pointed out in my earlier reply: we in the US argue over what those "costs of doing business" as a nation are. You are arguing that they should not include the public welfare, I argue they should. A healthy populace is a polpulace that can be productive, It is to the benefit of all that we have a healthy and educated citizenry. Some argue this is not the government's domain; I argue it is. Who else will pay fopr it? If we say each individual, we are kidding ourselves and will end up with an even greater divide between the healthy and educated and the unhealthy and uneducated. Talk about a recipe for revolution.
Goodness.
Sodaiho, there are two issues here.
One is whether we should call taking money from X and giving it to Y "redistribution". I think we should. I think it is dishonest not call it that. If redistribution is right, it certainly must be possible to explain why we need it without redefining the meaning of words.
The second issue is whether we should redistribute wealth or not and if yes, how much.
My position on the first issue is that we should be honest, even if it sounds better not to use bad words like "redistribution".
My position on the second issue is that I acknowledge that a tax system doesn't have to redistribute wealth and is not originally meant to redistribute wealth but that it can be used to redistribute wealth. In the case of a public healthcare system, I am for redistribution, in the case of social welfare I am not.
It has nothing to do with being American or not.
I agree with leauki, if you gonna redistribute wealth then call it what it is. Hiding something only means you agree it's wrong but want it anyways.
Hey steve, 2 things"
First, can you provide some kind of link to this information? I am interested in reading where you got this from. It's a pain to sift thru google sometimes.
Second, why do you create articles and then take long periods of time to defend them when commenst are posted against it?
One more thing I have to say steve, you probably have some good points to argue, but your lack of proper writing (no capital letters, missing words or incorrect use of words and punctuation), lack of explanation (you say so little without saying enough to make a complete point) and no reference as to how you came up with this makes it really hard to argue anything. Now everyone is like leauki, who seems to be able to understand these articles just fine.
Leuki, I believe stev's point was that it was Reagon who redistributed. You are saying, I believe, that since the rich earned the money in the first place that it is not redistribution to take from them and distribute it across the board in terms of the federal budget? Am I correct or am I misreading you?
My point of view is that any taxation is a redistribution of wealth, whether its a poor man's or a rich man's. How can it not be?
On the upswing,
No, and neither did many others, but 28% (which was my tax bracket in those times), was clearly not enough, in my opinion. Then, when you added all those wondrous shelters of the 80s many of us took full advantage of, many rich folks and corps (I understand) paid little to no taxes.
Leauki, I believe stev's point was that it was Reagon who redistributed.
Yes. That was his point. And I disagree because Steve redefined "redistribution" to arrive at his conclusion.
You are saying, I believe, that since the rich earned the money in the first place that it is not redistribution to take from them and distribute it across the board in terms of the federal budget?
If the money is merely taken from them but not directly given to anybody I wouldn't call it "redistribution", yes.
The government protects our lives and property. The rich have more property to protect and thus "use" government more. (I believe in a monopoly on the use of force, hence only government may legally protect life and property in that sense.)
I therefore find it accceptable if the rich pay more taxes and I don't think it is "redistribution" if the tax system reflects that.
Am I correct or am I misreading you?
It's fairly simple. Redistribution is if X takes from Y and gives to Z. If X takes but does not distribute, there is no "redistribution".
I am against redistribution, not against taxation.
Not all taxation is redistribution of wealth, even using your (now third) definition of redistribution. A land value tax would not distribute any wealth to anyone. In fact government would not even take away wealth created by the individual taxed (since land values are created by the community at large, not the individual plot owner).
Had to laugh at this. Reagan allowed those people to keep more of their own money, the money previously confiscated by those exorbitant tax rates, & you call him the Redistributor in Chief. You also neglect to mention that even after the Great Redistribution, tax revenues from those income brackets actually went up & that the vast majority of taxes are still paid by a small minority of income earners. Calling Reagan tax cuts 'redistribution' is the height of demagoguery, not to mention irrational, delusional, crazy and.. oh, BTW, did I say 'False'?
Oh, so how much extra did you end up sending in to the IRS to pay your fair share?
In answer to CharlesCS request for citation:
"During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics which in turn quotes from Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D. (July 19, 1996). "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates". The Heritage Foundation.
The fact often overlooked about the Reagan years was that the budget deficit increased from $700 billion to $3 trillion. The US went from being the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.
I do see a point to Steven's post. The gap between the rich and the poor the poor in the US has grown dramatically.See below.
Call it what you will, but wealth has shifted.
This assumes 2 things: 1) the economy is a zero-sum game and 2) people who started in the bottom 20% stayed in the bottom 20%. Neither is true, and nothing has 'shifted' - money did not 'move' from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, though a bunch of people certainly did.
Larry Kuperman... you posted a graph saying "the rich kept getting richer" in support of the old false adage "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer"... however the graph shows the top twnty percent making more, AND the bottom twenty ALSO make more... just not as much more...
The rich got richer by 76%, and the poor got 35% richer. Hardly "taking from the poor and giving to the rich". However if you would have taken from the "rich" and given to the "poor" EVERYONE would be poorer... but the rich would be poorer by a higher percentage...
Wealth is not relative, it is absolute. And in a FREE society, the wider the gap, the richer EVERYONE is, the smaller the gap, the poorer EVERYONE is. (if you have slavery or totalitarianism then this is obviously not the case).
As for the original poster... where is the argument, all I see is a little blurb of lies and word redefinition, nothing is actually being argued.
Let me counter things ahead of time...
Wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor is bad, it makes everyone poorer due to less people putting forth the effort to create.
Wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich IS EVEN WORSE... examples of it include SLAVERY and SERFDOM, where the lord owns the land, the people, and everything produced on it. In the SHORT term it makes the rich slightly richer, in the long term it makes the rich poorer and the poor completely destitute. cutting taxes on the rich is NOT wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.
Heavier taxation for the purpose of welfare is wealth redistribtion.
Heavier taxation for the funding programs that are NOT of the welfare nature (police, roads, etc) are NOT redistributive.
Heavier taxation of business makes the rich poorer and the poor poorer.
Lower taxation of business makes the rich richer and the poor richer. (but the rich get richerER)
Heavier taxation of individuals making more money decreases the incentive to make more money, and reduces the amount of people willing to dedicate themselves to intensive schooling (law, medicine, REAL business).
Heavier taxation of individuals making little money leads to feelings of resentment, which destabalizes the government.
A balance must be found between taxing high income and low income PEOPLE (not businessess). Because both have negatives. But this is NOT when dealing with wealth redistribution, but only with taxation for the purpose of providing services (water, electricity, military, police, road, etc)
Redistribution: Party C (government) Take from party A and give to party B.
Taxation: Party C (government) takes from party A and from party B, in differing amounts, to provide a service to both of them.
Your graph doesn't show wealth having "shifted". Did you pick the wrong graph?
YOu are wrong on so many points. First, Reagan did not "redistribute" anything. He took less. Redistribute means to take from those that have, and give to those who dont have (even if they have some, they get more than they had).
Second, you are 100% wrong on tax shelters. The fact that the percent of taxes paid by the wealthiest actually increased significantly because it no longer paid to put money in tax shelters blows part 2 of your diatribe out of the water.
3rd - cheap foreign labor was and is nothing new. But then you get into the issue of what to defend - illegal immigration? Or upholding the law? You cant have it both ways. And Union Busting? Reagan was a Union president! He busted nothing, they busted themselves. Even Unions have to obey the law (for now, that will probably change in the next 4 years).
This is not one of your better works.
Exactly.
I know you are summarising, but just to be more precise, let me add the following.
Groups A and B are groups defined using any definition and might be more than two groups.
Taxation is also when C (government) takes the same amounts from A and B while providing services to both of them.
And taxation is also when C takes from A but not B while providing services to both of them.
The second point is a bit difficult because it seems like taking from A and using those proceeds to provide to B is redistribution. And it is. However, the principle that redistribution is wrong is not a basic principle of taxation (and taxation can legally be used for redistribution). The services provided by government to A and B are services nobody can legally buy from other providers (police protection, an army etc.). They are forced monopolies (and should be).
Hence, since group B is forced to receive those services from C, C must provide those services, even if it means redistributing wealth in taking from A and using the money to provide services to B. That is not the redistribution being criticised by tax purists, as long as those services are services that cannot legally be provided by anybody else.
An erroenous assumption, and one of the talking points of the left.
And perhaps you could point to that in the Constitution? It's not there? Ok, then you could propose an amendment. No? You mean the American people dont really want it? (if they did an amendment would be a piece of cake).
There is a serious disconnect here. Taxes collected and used for common services is not redistribution. The poor are not paid because a road is built, or a city defended. They benefit, but they do not receive a stipend for it.
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. Go to college = better job, doing something you like, more money and respect. Don't go to college = less money doing a job you don't like, less respect and status in the community and innovation still yields the same rewards.
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. Which is fine, that's what this is all about, electing a government that spends our money and resources on the things we think are important. Now we're again choosing an administration that most closely resembles our will and this is one area were we all pay the same.
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.
So, how do you Mr. Conservative, plan to reduce the trillion dollar deficit?
As to Dr. Guy and his comment about the constitution and taxes, its true, but then, the framer's were dealing with 13 states, little to no Army, no infrastructure as we commonly consider it, and people died very early in life. Things have changed.
Be well
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
