Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?Page 3 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
"Few people really argue over redistribution of wealth. Just the direction in which it should be redistributed"

hmmmmmmm.... you sure? I'm middle class and I want Obama's plan to let me keep my money instead of redistributing it to the wealthy. To stop redistributing it.

Republicans want to redistribute it to the wealthy
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 12:56:56 AM
" Problem is that the 3 cents on the dollar is set to expire in 2010, and Congressional Budget Office already assumes this in their projections. "

McCain plans on cancelling the sunset provision that would make it expire and making the redistribution to the wealthy permanent.

If what you are saying is true then McCain's going to have an eveon more costly to the middle class plan than originally thought.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 6:06:23 AM
Republicans want to redistribute it to the wealthy
Odd I don't remember you calling me to inquire as to whom I preferred get my redistribution funds...
Nobody wants to be taxed, period. Given that we are / will be taxed, the question is who is in favor of efficient disbursement of tax dollars and who is in opposition. Again, the same answer, nobody wants their tax dollars to be pissed away, they want them to be utilized to make the country a better place to be.

"...the Devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist!"Subsequently I think the greatest trick the DNC ever played was in convincing the uninitiated that corporations receive welfare. Tax dollars are NOT funneled to corporations, rather tax breaks are given to corporations to aid in the stimulation of their growth. Quite simply your money is not being given to them, but rather less of their money is being taken and given to the government, and it's not a "forever" situation.


COLOR ME NAIEVE but here's what I don't understand is... why are people upset that Obama wants to turn TAXES back to the way they were when Clinton was president when ALL parties were doing pretty well and the country had a surplus? (This of course I'm sure adjusted for today's economic situation) Why is this a problem? Were we not better off during the Clinton years?
Getting out my crayons and looking for the color “naïve” …
There are a couple of “issues’ with the adjustment that I think you’re not considering. For one the tier structure, Bush added a “low end” tier that reduced the tax rate to the extreme poor by 5%, reverting to the Clinton tax rates increases that rate from 10% to 15%. Now the first response would be “the poor don’t pay taxes” and for the most part that would be correct, but also in that category are students / unskilled single (think fast food, retail, etc.) workers … they actually represent almost half of the “poor” category. The current tier thresholds provide for higher incomes levels at lower tax rates. Obama’s plan lowers the threshold levels and increases the tax rates, so for many it’s a double whammy, and some lower end middle class will be hit by as much as 13% change in their current tax liability. I realize that’s not what he said in his infomercial, but a simple perusal of the tables from 2000 vs. 2008 lay it out very simply … there are middle class tax increases, the part the campaign rhetoric does not tell you is that, by virtue of threshold adjustments (lowering), some middle class will be reclassified as “wealthy”. Conversely, lowering the threshold of low end middle class actually increases the taxes on some of the poor simply by virtue of the same pen stroke reclassification, their tax rate increases from 15% to 28%. Again, other than the 3% across the board, there is no “increase” to middle class, rather a reclassification. (Technically the 3% isn’t an “increase” it’s a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.)

Of the last 28 years in this country, wasn't 8 of those years (CLINTON years) better for the country financially at large? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The evidence would suggest that 20 years of republican rule has yielded NOTHING for MOST middle class AMERICANS. This would seem to be a glowing indictment how fiscally irresponsible the GOP has been and the right has the GALL to criticize AT ALL? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I can take it.
Yes & No… and here’s why… Almost ½ of middle class American workers are dependant on at least some level on federal tax dollars by virtue of federal, state, county, or city employee, government subsidized programs or contracts, etc., i.e.: the public sector, when tax rates are low, the income gains of the public sector is negatively impacted. The reduction in revenue negatively impact and in some cases eliminate cost of living wages, benefits and other perks. Conversely, when taxes are high, the exact same impacts are felt in the private sector.
When the Federal Government has a surplus, it’s a clear indication that the citizens are being over taxed, or necessary programs may be underfunded. When there is a deficit, it’s a clear indication that the citizens are being under taxed, or necessary (and unnecessary) programs are being overfunded. The correct first step could never be to adjust rates, rather to adjust spending, then and only then can a correct adjustment be made to tax rates. One example, and I’ll use a GOP herring, “the bridge to no where” will cost the average worker $4. Granted $4 is nothing, yet sometimes $4 is the difference between being able to make a house payment on time and having it be late, between paying your utility bill and having it cut off. It’s the difference between buying enough ground beef for hamburgers and having to serve hamburger helper. Would you rather pay $8 so that someone else doesn’t have to pay anything? What about $6, so that someone else would only have to pay $2? Consider that if that $4 is taken from your pocket each and every day, suddenly $4 becomes $1,460 annually, $6 becomes $2,190 and $8 becomes $2,920. Suppose with the redistribution, you ended up having to tote wood & water for 4 individuals … that would make your daily contribution $16 and $5,840 annually. So let me pose the question in a more appropriate format, would you prefer that government increase your taxes to fund more government pork, or would you rather they allow you to keep the money that you worked for to spend on real pork for YOUR family?
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 55
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:49:48 AM
Why don't we ask the ALASKANS what they think about this so called "redistribution of wealth"..?? I mean, they have been getting some money under the governship of Ms. Palin.. haven't they..?? Any Alaskan here..???
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:39:23 AM
COLOR ME NAIEVE but here's what I don't understand is... why are people upset that Obama wants to turn TAXES back to the way they were when Clinton was president when ALL parties were doing pretty well and the country had a surplus? (This of course I'm sure adjusted for today's economic situation) Why is this a problem? Were we not better off during the Clinton years?


And it was all due to taxes? I have a bridge to sell you.


Why don't we ask the ALASKANS what they think about this so called "redistribution of wealth"..?? I mean, they have been getting some money under the governship of Ms. Palin.. haven't they..?? Any Alaskan here..???


Alaskans have received oil royalty payments for years, this is not something Palin invented, nor is it income tax revenue flowing from the rich to the poor.
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 57
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 11:25:36 AM
Mr. skier... I never said Ms. Plain INVENTED the redistibution... You give her too much credit.. SHE IS NOT THAT SMART...!! ... But it is still redistribution, no matter how You want to see it.... If that wasn't the case, rich neighborhoods would have rich PUBLIC schools and poor neighborhoods... well... You get the idea.... hopefully!
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 11:29:30 AM

But it is still redistribution, no matter how You want to see it.... If that wasn't the case, rich neighborhoods would have rich PUBLIC schools and poor neighborhoods... well... You get the idea.... hopefully!


Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought you were referring to payments made to every resident of Alaska from royalties on oil produced in Alaska. If so, I still fail to see how this is "redistribution of wealth".
 Eric2008
Joined: 2/17/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 1:07:42 PM
I am now more confused 1)Obama has stated that there would be no tax increase if you make less than 250k
2) this weekend it was obama stating it was 200k
3)Monday Biden said 150k
4)Bill Richardson today said it would be 120k
5) what will it be next week?
6) Will Barney Frank decide it will be lower after the election.


God help what it will finally be when they get around to redistributing the wealth.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 1:30:47 PM
NO THANK YOU!
After my years of dealing with the DOJ as a consultant, I wouldn't take any of the elected positions at 10 times the salary. Not because I couldn't do a better job than most of them, but because half the day is spent making sure you don't do anything questionable the other half of the day! In short, as an elected official, you spend half of your time sweating over job security, the other half running for re-election!
Truly a sad day when it's obvious to even dolts like me that Government no longer exists to serve at our pleasure, but to serve at the pleasure of its employees....
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 61
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 5:32:16 PM
Mr skier... I wonder how it is possible that You fail to see how that is... well... Never mind... GEEZZZ... no wonder we are in the situation that we are right now...
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 62
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 5:38:02 PM
By the way, as I posted in another thread..... If the real RICH people ACTUALLY SUPPORT the so called redistribution... ( a.k.a.. rising taxes for the wealthy).. I mean real reach people like the Waltons.. Warren Buffet... Bill Gates.. or even Donald Trump... What do We care...?? Why areYou people even arguing about it... It does not make sense to me...
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 6:23:42 PM
Speaking of redistribution of wealth. Obama has millions and millions of dollars, but yet he has a half brother living in Nairobi that makes less then a dollar a month that he doesn't give a dime to. He has an aunt living outside of Boston that is living in one of the poorest parts of the city that he doesn't give a dime to. Obama wants to talk about spreading the wealth around, but yet he doesn't even give one dime to help his own family members out.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 6:43:37 PM
Steel, he wants to spread "our" wealth around, not his. Look up his and Joe "the Patriot" Biden's lists of contributions to charity and you'll see a pretty sad picture. Obama has stepped it up since running for office but Biden is as bad as the WalMart heirs when it comes to that kind of stuff. Barry and Joe are going to be real big spreaders when it comes to other people's money.
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 65
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 6:54:54 PM
That is what politicians do!!! they always mess around with someone else's money..!!! Thank You Mr. Ready.... ..!!
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 6:59:48 PM
Steel, he wants to spread "our" wealth around, not his.


Exactly Ready4SomethingFun. You hit the nail right on the head.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 8:55:15 PM

Mr skier... I wonder how it is possible that You fail to see how that is... well... Never mind... GEEZZZ... no wonder we are in the situation that we are right now...


We're where we are becuase of people believing in things that they don't understand well enough to explain.

Now, why don't you explain to me how the Alaska Permanent Fund is "redistribution of wealth", or how it in ANY way resembles Obama's plan to "spread the wealth"?

The source funds for the Alaska Permanent Fund has NOTHING to do with anyone's income.

Since you seem to want ot assert that I'm ignorant, why son't you share with us your knowlege of the topic?
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:16:07 PM
Some circumstance exist that make paying your family members bills something that isn't good for them.


Taking care of your own family is an option, but it's fine and damn dandy to have to hold the hands of those you don't even know to get them a leg up on the ladder of life?

Misguided thinking there at best. I'd gladly help a friend or family member but it's not my job or anyone else's to take care of everybody else. And if Obama's family member(s) is/are on the government dime, meaning they are getting AMERICAN tax dollars while Obama & Michelle brunch at the Waldorf, yes I think it's a serious issue.


Umm my wealth is already being spread out nicely.


Is it due to circumstances you created or circumstances the government created? If it's the governments fault (and I don't mean by letting you have a loan you couldn't possibly repay, or getting pregnant 3 times by 3 differnet men and expecting the government to rasie them{just an example-I know you can't get pregnant}-contrary to popular liberal belief--that's YOUR fault) then there is a problem that needs to be solved by the government. Your honest answer to that should help you see why many of us feel that responsibility for one's actions should not be left up to the government to decide where and how someone else's money should be spent without a vote.


When my ex and I split up I lived for several years under the poverty level, raised 3 kids by myself, tightened my wallet and did okay. Maybe we didn't have cable and internet all the time but we ate 3 squares a day and lived in decent neighborhoods. I didn't run out and buy houses and cars and all the latest little gadgets (to this day I don't have a cell phone, but my kids do) and we survived. Without any hand outs, and proudly. And I have 3 kids who are ready to continue in my footsteps and work for what they get, my oldest already works his butt off, often two jobs and college that HE pays for because he knows that he will appreciate it more if he does it that way. My middle child is 16 and is looking for her first job. When the government gives people handouts, the majority of them, contrary to the messiah, continue to ask more of the government, then they begin to demand more of the government. They lose the desire to help themselves, It rarely works the opposite way.

Now Obama who won't take care of his own (for WHATEVER reason) is going to dictate to me, since I am now for the first time in my life in great shape and good standing, that I have to "be patriotic" and give up "my fair share" when I never asked for anything when I probably deserved it. BULLS**T. I got where I am today by hard work and perserverance. I still don't have what anyone would consider great wealth, but I am apparently the one guy in this country who IS better off than I was eight freakin' years ago and I'd like to keep it that way. I'll be damned if I'm just going to hand over something I worked my ass for without a fight or a damn large amount of noise.

And before anybody puts words in my mouth, I don't mean those that are physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. I'm all for helping them.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:32:47 PM
Yes we've heard but what Obama does in regard to his family are separate from what we need as a country.


No it's not. How can one say that they want to help the poor, yet they don’t even help out their family members that are poor? It's hypocrisy.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:38:23 PM

No it's not. How can one say that they want to help the poor, when they don’t even help out their family members that are poor? It's hypocrisy.


Millions were willing to trust Bill Clinton, when it was quite clear that his own wife couldn't.

Both appear to be classic cases of cognitive dissonance.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:42:32 PM
Both appear to be classic cases of cognitive dissonance.


Exactly. It's the typical double talk BS.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:45:51 PM

Because there can be? To a MUCH greater extent than anyone is actually proposing.....

And a lot of people would be helped by it?


For a short time, perhaps.

Give a man a fish, and he'll have a meal.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll never be hungry.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:14:28 PM

And who says that teaching a man to fish doesn't cost anything?


No one said that. Obama hasn't saif much about it, either. He just wants to take some of the fish I worked to catch, and give it to someone else.


Plus, if there ain't no fish, teaching him to dangle his line in the water isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot of good....no?


Excellent point. What good will Obama's promised tax cuts (if he can deliver them) do if you don't have a job?
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:26:16 PM
I have a few questions:

Why you feel we should all throw our money in a big pot and divey it up, and sing a few bars of Michael Row the Boat Ashore?

I don't ask you to give up your money, what right do you have to ask me for mine?

What person or persons instilled this attitude? Why does it seem that teachers these days are all left wing socialists? They feel they don't get enough for what they do but if they are all for giving it all away why should it matter?

And this is not aimed directly at anyone in particular, but, when there are so many countries that are already adept to your way of thinking and have so many like minded people that agree with you (Canada, for example), why not just move there instead of trying to make a country where nearly half of the population doesn't agree, adopt those principles?




And this analogy might be better suited:

Give a man a handout, and he'll come running back for more.
Take away the handout, he'll go find a damn job.

Or starve to death.

Either way he is no longer a burden on society.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?