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  
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 97
view profile
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?Page 7 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
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....
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 98
view profile
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?