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
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?Page 4 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

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.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:28:01 PM
But right next to your picture was an ad that said "Spread the wealth, it's not a tax, it's a handout".

So with that in mind, might I ask, exactly:


I have no control over what ads are placed on my profile. If only....

I teach skiing... part time in the winter. I sell real estate for a living, which is in the toilet right now, thanks to fear and uncertainty regarding the economy.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:29:56 PM
That wasn't aimed at you and I changed the message, I didn't feel it was worded correctly. It was a reply to the other poster. Sorry 'bout that.



I always get the stinking Obama is God ads next to my profile.
 Eric2008
Joined: 2/17/2008
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 7:14:10 AM
"• Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.

• Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

• Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

Under the Obama Plan:

• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

• Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

This fantasy where Obama claims to cut taxes for 95% of the population is just that a fantasy.Just this week Biden said the number was150k and his buddy Bill Richardson stated the number was 120k.So your whole post is like a lot of other left-wingers .....it's rubbish because your party leaders have already torn it down.
He is not going to bring down the deficit. He is going to increase it by creating $1,000,000,000,000 in new spending.I have been on this forum for each and everyday since it was determined that Obama was the Democratic candidate and not once has an Obama supporter shown where Obama was actually going to make a cut in the budget.Why? Because he hasn't shown where he will make a cut.
Each and every one of Obama's supporters lives in a fantasy world where they think they are going to get money from the Government and it is all a lie.If you pay taxes now you will continue to pay taxes and if you don't you will get more welfare.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 7:57:20 AM

I'm trying to help Joe out with his aspirations


You mean to record a cover version of Achy Breaky Heart?

Poor Joe. He's making plans to turn his 15 minutes of fame into a higher tax bracket but his 15 minutes are almost up. Come Wednesday he'll be a long time answer to a trivia question, but the people with whom he's shared a stage won't be taking his calls and Nashville won't be interested in giving him studio time anymore. Hopefully he'll still be a hit at the local bar for another month or so.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 9:44:44 AM
Good luck being able to build any new houses continuing the same economic policies.

I'm friends with owners of several plumbing businesses in an area the size of Joe's that is less depressed than is Joe's. They laugh at him. They want people to be able to afford to build new houses. They want businesses to stop shutting down and to see economic growth. Taxes are the least of Joe's worries... keeping a job should be his concern.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:22:12 PM
Instead of listening to leftist spin why not read his plan and then decide for yourself:

http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/jobsforamerica.pdf


It's not just about jobs, it includes his healthcare, energy and tax proposals.


537 major economists from across the country agree with this plan as the best the two have to offer.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:38:40 PM
From the original post (Message 1) ...
Should we take 40 or 50 percent of what "rich" people make to support those who make zero?
I guess I don't understand where anyone could get the idea that the higher rate of taxes the very wealthy would pay would in any way be handed directly to those who make zero. Where the h3ll did that come from?

Maybe that extra money will go to offset helping to provide health benefits to the disabled veterans who are getting ripped off by the government. You know ... the ones who are coming back from Iraq maimed and mutilated and being told that they no longer qualify for help from the VA ... have no job anymore because they can no longer pursue the career they interrupted to go off and fight the illegal war "Dubya" started. Is that what you mean?


537 major economists from across the country agree with this plan as the best the two have to offer.
OMG LMAO ... the best economic plan the two have to offer ... that is just too precious ...

That gave me a good laugh ... I do appreciate that.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:41:54 PM

I guess I don't understand where anyone could get the idea that the higher rate of taxes the very wealthy would pay would in any way be handed directly to those who make zero. Where the h3ll did that come from?


It's quite simple, if you listen to Obama. He says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of American families.

35% - 40% of families pay no taxes. To "cut" their taxes, you'd have to give them money.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:45:19 PM

The President has massive impact on the economy as he/she appoints people who manage our US Economy.


If only it was indeed "managed".

Just about everyone the President appoints has to be confirmed by Congress.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 3:34:15 PM
Glad to provide a laugh for you Cotter.

But their names are all on the website. They are real people and they are backing the plan. Do you have an economics degree to refute any of it?

I don't and won't pretend to so enlighten me as to what was so humorous.


When your guy gets in, we'll all be laughing. All the way to the poorhouse.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 3:58:02 PM

To "cut" their taxes, you'd have to give them money.
Oh goody ... that means I'm finally gonna get some income that's taxable ...

Hand it over ... hopefully before Christmas ...
... because I saw a game I want to buy my grandson and it's really expensive.

My interpretation of that statement ... if that is truly what OBAMA said word for word ... is that he wants to cut taxes for 95% of American families who actually PAY taxes. It doesn't surprise me though that the opposition would put such a twist on it. But then they are grasping at straws since they have nothing better to offer ...
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 5:01:14 PM
Trail, Since you quoted me and then posted this reply:



Just so you're 100% clear on this Joe: that plumbing business you're [not really] "planning" to buy does not make over $250k/year in profits.


What does that have to do anything I said in my post that you are replying to?

If you are trying to equate me to Joe the Plumber, you are about a million miles off base. I'm sure it saddens you that I am actually doing good in these "troubled times" because I did the right things and don't need "big brother" Obama to save me from drowning in my own inability to care for myself. Fact is I don't, but my only hope is some politico doesn't catch wind of it and want to ruin my life by making me the next poster boy for their campaign.

And if for one minute you buy the fact that those under that level (that keeps changing, by the way) won't pay more taxes under Obama, think about this. If he gets in office and wakes up to the fact that his plans are unobtainable otherwise, he will tax his illegal alien aunt in Boston if he has too.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 11/1/2008 8:46:26 PM
As some of you may know i am not a supporter of John McCain. I do not feel that under his administration or under Obamas either the economy will improve and we will end up in the great promised land of Utopia. That being said i have some questions for all of you::
First for those of you who support John McCain, how can you call Obama a socialist when John McCain does the same thing. One poster on her pointed out that in calling Obama a socialist someone failed to see that government buying banks and bailing out morgages was "socialistic" in nature but kind of backwards... it was steal from the poor to help the rich. John McCain has supported this kind of attitude many times in his career.
For those of you who support Obama, do you take into account two thing? First off Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid? These two people will control congress. If they, as they are predicting right now end up with a supermajority in both houses, they will be able to pass what ever legislation that they wish. Now maybe Obama will say 3% on the rich, but these two have shown they like the idea of higher taxes. So when they say more, do you think Obama will say no? Please keep in mind that Obama has voted with his party 96% of the time.
Regardless who wins, i see big trouble for this nation. I wonder what the tax rates will really be in a a few years. Will the rich be defined as anyone who makes more than 250,000 or will it drop to 120,000 or even less. Will that 3% go to 10% or more?

Many of you have said we need redistribution to level the field and eliminate the imbalence between rich and poor. I may disagree philosophically but i do understand the rational. Many of you simply say well i dont make that much so tuff for them. I asked what was fair and if I got any answers it was well 3% is ok. Its fair. So if it goes to more then will you say it isnt fair? When will all of you who feel that taxing those who make more than you be enough, when will it cross into the grounds of unfair?

And just a side note, the power you grant a government to do to another; you grant it to do to you.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 1/26/2009 10:27:31 AM

Capitalism is the redistribution of wealth............


Really? How so?

Capitalism rewards work, and rewards the creation of enterprises that supply what people want or need.
 flawedbutfun
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 92
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 1/26/2009 11:29:30 AM
LOL...capitalism rewards greed and greed alone. It believes private citizens know best how to treat land, labor and capital. I surely do not trust Exxon (Valdez), Weyerhaeuser and Monsanto with our environmental (land, air, and water) laws, or WalMart, Coal Mine Companies (black lung) or Union Carbide (asbestos) with our Labor laws or Citibank, Bank of America, or Wall Street with our banking laws.

Run amok capitalsim is good for a few and bad for the other 90% of society. There needs to be a strong middle class protected by strong government regulation that protect societies rights. Business and Individuals can thrive together, but not under unabashed Capitalism or Socialism or Communism.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 93
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 1/26/2009 11:02:38 PM

The idea of taxing the wealthy more and helping those who can't rise on their own has a very long tradition - the Romans did it. It's just a fundamental fairness that goes deep into human nature.


A flat tax (with no deductions) would mean that the rich pay more than the poor. This is really the only fair tax.
 concertlover3
Joined: 8/13/2011
Msg: 94
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/19/2011 1:28:48 PM
progressive taxation (tax the rich more) is sort of like this:

1. when you were in school, would you give up your A+ grade and take a B or a C so that a flunking student who didn't study was raised to a D or a C?

2. would you give up or sacrifice your mid size or luxury car and donate that money so a homeless person can be given a 4 cylinder puddle jumper to get back and forth to the welfare office or soup kitchen, gasoline included?

3. would you sign a pledge saying you are totally responsible for your share of the national debt, at this time costing $47,000 per person? this debt takes care of illegal mexicans who give birth in our hospitals, get unemployment and SSI claims and minority advantages over majority whites better qualified? AND LOTS MORE!

WOULD YOU GIVE ANY OF THESES THINGS UP?

YOU'RE ASKING THE RICH TO.

HYPOCRITE!
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/19/2011 7:19:43 PM
What is almost ALWAYS overlooked in the discussion of "redistribution of wealth," is how the wealth CAME to be so UNDISTRIBUTED to begin with.

It is the nature of wealth gatherers (humans, for the most part) to try to gather as much as they can. The more they have, the more power over others they tend to have.

Most modern states were CREATED by and for people who wanted to be able to pursue "wealth." This is NOT a bad thing, because "wealth" includes things like health and peace, so that children can be raised safely. But it also means, for the sake of THIS sort of discussion, that throughout the world, MOST states set up legal systems that slant everything in FAVOR of the wealth gatherers.

My point is, that the REASON wealth often NEEDS to be RE-distributed, is that the game of gathering it has become rigged in favor of it's concentration to the point where it strangles the society itself.

Here in the U.S., the wealth gatherers have rigged the "game," so that they can use up the "peasants" lives and the nations resources, and have fobbed the REAL cost of wealth gathering off onto other peasants. Rather like the old Mining groups, who used to be allowed to destroy the entire countryside and the whole watershed of an area, and carry all of the profits form what they mined away for themselves.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/21/2011 12:41:45 PM

the rich pay WAY less percentage-wise than the middle class and the poor

This is false. I know it was written like 3 years ago but it was false then, too.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/22/2011 2:43:31 PM
Top 1%: 23.27%
Top 5% excluding top 1%: 17.21%
Top 10% excluding top 5%: 12.44%
Top 25% excluding top 10%: 9.29%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/24/2011 12:56:07 PM
I don't particularly care for anyone calling BS on my sources, unless they provide a source that disagrees with mine (you haven't), in which case we need to figure out why and which is accurate. Your article takes exception to one statistic the TF has provided three years ago.

But you do make a fair point on the fact that income taxes are not a full picture. There are indeed gas taxes, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes (where the poor are more likely to be spending money), lotteries, payroll taxes, excise and sales...

Gas taxes are regressive, but they're essentially "per-mile". They're a use tax. Alcohol and cigarettes are overtaxed, but cigarette taxes are really meant to discourage people from smoking. Solution for paying that one: quit smoking.

Payroll taxes are obviously more complicated. Social security is a stupid argument. That's a money-in to money-out scenario. If you raise or eliminate the cap on income taxable under social security, you basically raise the pay-in, and thus the pay-out. With an income cap comes a benefits cap. That's not a good argument. Welfare, I assume works somewhat the same way, but honestly I don't know. I could be completely wrong there, but it's such a small part of the payroll tax I don't particularly care to argue or even look it up. The bulk goes to social security. And when people argue that the social security tax is unfair, they're only ever talking about raising taxes, not lowering them on the lower class.

Never met a tax they didn't like, etc....
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 8/30/2011 7:38:48 PM

So I was wondering, do most of you support the idea of wealth redistribution?
How do I know? Take a poll.


Is it the purpose of government to take from those who have the most to support those who have the least?
The purpose of government is to govern. If that serves to help govern the people, then yes, because it is helping the better governing of the people. If not, no.


And is redistribution really needed and if so why?
It's not always needed. It's sometimes needed.

Take an example of healthcare. Say that the government provides no healthcare services at all, not even investment. Then rich people can afford expensive private healthcare. Poor people cannot afford good healthcare. Some of them get sick with an infectious disease. They cannot afford to go to the doctor all the time. So they don't, until they are in a bad way. By this time, they are no longer infectious, and have already spread their germs far and wide. Poor people all over get it. Poor people clean the pool, toilet and house for rich people. Poor people prepare food for rich people. Poor people make the beds for rich people. So now, the poor spread their disease to rich people. But now, exposure from poor people is so high, that even anti-virals won't sort it for everyone. Lots of rich people get sick. Some die.

You could quarantine the poor. But then, many, or most, of the poor will die. These are the people who clean your pool, clean your toilet, clean your house, make your food, make your bed, etc. You'll have do a lot of this yourself, until the numbers replace themselves.

What would you prefer, a world where you get 100% of your money, but every year, your country is gripped by an epidemic, and you are walking in a "death zone"? Or would you prefer to pay some of your money, to keep the poor healthy enough that they aren't spreading epidemics?


Finally, i would like to know with some less abiguious wording, what is fair. Should we take 40 or 50 percent of what "rich" people make to support those who make zero?
Depends on the input values. You have to do the calculations to know.


How fair of redistibution should we have and what would be the real goal of said redistribution?
Make everyone's life better, especially the rich, by group selection.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?