Why not wealth redistribution?

False RW propaganda. Amazing how many just buy into the mythology.

 

Than why did Reagan's slashed tax rates result in a lot more rich people and a quadrupling of the national debt?

 

I'm saying he blew the money we gave him before. We are over 11 trillion in debt. I know the Democrats aren't worried about paying off that debt, because most of them aren't paying Federal taxes anyway. But our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to be stuck with it. He wants to create jobs, give these companies willing to build plants here some good tax breaks and they'll come and we'll not only create jobs, but get billions in taxes doing it. The States are doing it and it's working. All the Libs can think about is taxing people more and that takes money from our economy.

 

To the contrary. When you tax the uber rich who would otherwise stick another trillion in their offshore accounts, you're putting more money into our economy.

 

Yeah, they tend to keep what ever money they'd of saved from not being taxed. On the other hand, poor people generally spend whatever they get

 

Exactly. So when we cut taxes for the 1%, they save it in their offshore accounts and it doesn't get spent in the economy. The poor, as you point out, generally spend whatever they get.

 

while in turn guzzling down our tax dollars in welfare , food stamps, and low income housing.

 

Government cannot arbitrarily and/or greatly increase the minimum wages without doing damage. Sure they can increase it 3-4% every now and then but bumping it up by 50% and more is a dangerous move. All wages must increase proportionately when you increase the minimum wage so in actuality once the dust settles, it's not clear to me that minimum wage earners benefited? No matter how politics wishes to spin things, we cannot get something (like raising the minimum wage) for nothing...there is always a cost. Logic dictates if there was no downside risks then why not increase minimum wage every six months by 10%? When the cost of expenses increases, so must the prices of products and services...inflation. You can increase the minimum wage to $15/hour, then after a few months all other wages will increase by 100%, inflation will increase, and nothing has changed regarding the purchasing power of those earning minimum wage.

There will ALWAYS be people earning the least amount of pay. And since the prices of products and services are mostly determined by the lower and middle class wage earners, those earning below that at minimum wage will always struggle. Whether the wage scale goes from $7.25/hour to $50/hour, or $15/hour to $100/hour, or $20/hour to $150/hour, those earning the least wages will always struggle. The ONLY way for these workers to gain more is to acquire more skills and education to increase their value in the workplace. All the other crap is simply political crap which never solves anything...

 

I'd rather have homeless people who have to steal to get by and eat or use up more money by being locked up in jail. Its not a good system, but its better than our current options.

 

I would rather load them up on a boat and send them to Australia

 

All of those who earn an hourly wage are the ones who primarily set the prices of goods and services with their purchasing demand. The 1% are not impacting inflation much...forget about the 1%! Within the hourly wage earners, over the decades, all of them have received pay increases...average pay in 1950 might have been $2/hour while today it is $25/hour. But as I stated in my post, IMO the problem comes from hourly wage earners who spend more than they have by abusing credit purchases. How many workers own $25-$30K cars, paying payments for 5-7 years, or leasing, because they figure out how to manage the monthly payment of $350...the answer is millions! This drives up the price of automobiles, insurance, repair, licensing, etc. while the wages don't move at the same rate...now things cost too much for the wages earned and people whine. How about a 10 year old car, less costs for all those years, and it doesn't drive up inflation? We do the same with the homes we buy and the credit card purchases. IMO this creates a somewhat false economy in which the prices are very high while wages remain relatively low.

 

Over the past thirty years, real median incomes have barely grown while real income of the wealthiest have soared.

So no, hourly wage earners are not keeping up with economic growth.

When people buy things, they create demand for products and services, which creates more production and more hiring. Less spending = less production = less jobs. Which is exactly what has happened as we've gutted that great engine of spending, the middle class, over the past 30 years.

How is that good for the economy in your view?

And I'm not sure what country you're living in, but I doubt many median income families are buying 25-30k cars very often. The average age of the car on the road today is a record 11.4 years.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/average-age-of-cars-in-us-jumps-to-record-high-of-114-years.html

We certainly don't have the problem that there is too much spending. Spending growth has been anemic in this recovery compared to prior ones.

 

Some of it will. But even their spending creates demand for more products and services, creating more jobs, and then maybe some of those on welfare can find a job and they won't need to be on welfare.

Versus the money sitting in some offshore account doing nothing.

 

You really think another country wants our poor, and old people? Deporting American citizens doesn't sound like a very American thing to do.
Beyond that, most everything poor people get goes right back into the economy. Businesses would lose quite a bit of business if we got rid of all welfare recipients.

 

Ok, lets look at Johnson's tax cuts. Who got the biggest benefits of it, the rich or the rest of us, I bet you'll never hear this from the Left either.? There is so much the Left won't tell you. What they do say is only one sided.

The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

Reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70%
Reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
Phased-in acceleration of corporate estimated tax payments (through 1970)
Created minimum standard deduction of $300 + $100/exemption (total $1,000 max)

History and effects[edit]

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964

 

I gave you facts. I already showed you where Carter drew up regulations that curbed Federal Union employees wages. All you have to do is open the web sight and read it.

I also told you it was Carter that started deregulations with the airline, railroad and trucking industry. None of that came from Fox. I remembered it and you should too if your as old as you say you are.

Actually Jimmy Carter started the deregulation of the airline ...
www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&... Cached
Actually Jimmy Carter started the deregulation of the airline industry. The last social Democrat



Jimmy Carter: Trucking Industry Deregulation Message to the ...
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=32507 Cached
... substantially Federal economic regulation over the trucking industry. ... the start, major farm ... Carter: "Trucking Industry Deregulation Message to the ...


Efficiency and Adjustment: The Impact of Railroad Deregulation
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa033.html Cached
The Impact of Railroad Deregulation. ... deregulation did not really begin until 1979, when President Carter appointed two pro-deregulation economists, ..

 

Simply bringing down labor costs does practically nothing to induce employers to invest in better technologies at potentialy lower cost.

 

The truth is that we currently have wealth redistribution from the workers that create the wealth to the super-wealthy investors that don't create any wealth. It's called "crony capitalism" because of favoritism for the wealthy and corporations over the small businesses owner and the worker. Our tax codes provide favoritism to the Top 1% of income earners and to the Top 5% of enterprises (i.e. large corporations) in the United States.

If we end crony capitalism then we end the wealth redistribution problem that currently exists that benefits a very small but elite group in the United States at the expense of everyone else.

 

You cannot have a govt that does not redistribute wealth/ resources. Every law, regulation, service, program or tax produces economic winners or losers. thus virtually every act that is not an appointment or symbolic only, redistributes wealth from one demographic group to another. War redistributes wealth. Peace redistributes wealth. The Farm bill redistributes wealth. No child left Behind redistributes wealth. Medicaid and taxpayer funded small business loans redistribute wealth. Every defense contract does it too. When your city annexes a suburb or city council offers a tax break to a major employer, it represents a redistribution of wealth. Even a decision to criminalize or decriminalize a substance, authorize a merger, build a prison or school or hire four more attorneys for the patent office redistributes wealth.

We all believe in redistributing wealth using either the tax code, or legislation or the regulation of private, public or quasi-public conduct. the only question is whether we consider that redistribution as a primary or secondary consequence of a public act and who we want the winner or loser to be.

I happen to believe we might as well redistribute some of it towards the less fortunate as a primary goal and ameliorate human suffering, offer some stability in food, shelter and healthcare and facilitate some upward class mobility using progressive taxation and the providing of govt services.

 

While taxes are a form of wealth distribution, socialists mean something completely different. Taxes are a neccesary function of government to build an infrastructure for a prosperous nation as well as military and law enforcement.

They mean you can't have more stuff than another guy, you have to have the same amount of wealth, so it's okay to just barge into your home and take your wealth and you property and give it to other people. They just like to use smokescreens to soften the blow.

I don't understand why they think it's okay to do this, but really, what it boils down to, is just another form of greed and lust for power.

Don't be fooled by their buzzwords and dirty tricks. see them for what they really are.

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity