What is Wealth Redistribution?
Why does it exist?
Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.
The government needs to raise the minimum wage, or raise taxes on the rich to create another entitlement for those that have less.
What I can't seem to understand is the justification for doing it.
Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?
What did he/she do of value to deserve more?
There has to be some justification, right?
Or is it only that the rich, for absolutely no obvious valid reason, deserve to be divested of their wealth & valuables?
Demonization of the Wealthy, & the Industrial Corporations to justify taking away what they worked for, to be redistributed to the lower income levels of a society.
What's the valid justification for doing it?
Is there any righteous justification for the redistribution of wealth to those that haven't earned it, from those that have?
If you think there is, please note in positive terms how those that are on the receiving end deserve receiving it.
What did he/she do of value to deserve more?
There has to be some justification, right?
Christian Morality.
Otherwise it must've stayed an instrument of casting the unlucky away.
Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?
Better yet, why do they make so damned much?
Shouldn't they make less? That would make a Happy Meal cheaper for the rest of us
In 2009, nearly 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax. Nice.
7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011. Nicer, yet.
Everybody knows that welfare moms are scam artists.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGXsHfe8ZuswBcf3VesDGaD2sBolRrrQytKiVzH-syAhqRWbcA)
Poor Mr. Boehner!
Just as a note, I meant this to be a 'global' condition to be addressed, not any particular country or society.
Good topic SF.
You say it's a global matter - but is it just individual wealth you are discussing or is it a country's wealth.
Let's say there is a country, low lying and devastated by a tsunami in the Pacific. As a result the people there, deserving or not, have lost their wealth and are, say, now reliant on help from others until they can recover from the disaster. Would you put that in the same frame of augment as individuals?
What could he mean?
[video]http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/japan-tsunami-2011-vin[/video]
Good topic SF.
You say it's a global matter - but is it just individual wealth you are discussing or is it a country's wealth.
Let's say there is a country, low lying and devastated by a tsunami in the Pacific. As a result the people there, deserving or not, have lost their wealth and are, say, now reliant on help from others until they can recover from the disaster. Would you put that in the same frame of augment as individuals?
What could string mean?
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/japan-tsunami-2011-vin
or is it a country's wealth.
The country is an abstract political (or politico-psychological) concept.
Such abstract entities may either coincide or not with certain local
actual "shareholders" and/or administrators of&for some complex local communities, companies, conglomerates... Only personal so-called 'wealth' and survival ability coincide with-to the actual set of concepts/reality.
The country is an abstract political (or politico-psychological) concept.
To be more precise, the
country's wealth is an abstract concept in
economic terms.
The country is an abstract political (or politico-psychological) concept.
To be more precise, the country's wealth is an abstract concept in economic terms.
:o When folks start quoting themselves, we know the end is near. :devil:
Hear this disapproved TED talk: Inequality and Job Creators (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wc9bWc-WRs)
Belfrager thinks TED talks only promote the capitalist consumerist illusion, but this one doesn't - and was accordingly rejected from TED website (http://www.ted.com/conversations/11476/why_is_the_nick_hanauer_talk_n.html). It promotes a properly Keynesian view of business cycle (note the innovative term "ecosystemic feedback loop"), as opposed to false Keynesian (i.e. Hicks' model) or Hayekan or Friedmanian simplistic cowboy capitalism, specifically exemplified by American tax system favouring the rich, which is criticised in the talk.
It's short, mere 6 minutes. Endure.
Belfrager thinks TED talks only promote the capitalist consumerist illusion, but this one doesn't - and was accordingly rejected from TED website (http://www.ted.com/conversations/11476/why_is_the_nick_hanauer_talk_n.html).
Ah ah, see? :)
I was certain... unfortunately.
Wealth redistribution is a moral duty. What there is to discuss is how it should be done and until what extent.
It's so wrong to foment pure parasitism as to deny solidarity to those fallen into misfortune.
All economy is a societal derivative of the natural resources distribution. To the population.
I want to know the justification for one man to have more than he will need for several lifetimes while men who work for him have barely the means of survival. That would be of interest to more than a handful, I daresay.
You're talking about 'justice' of sorts, aren't you?
Maybe interesting for this debate is to know that at many Muslim societies there's a moral law that makes someone that made a fortune to give back ten percent to the neighbors of his original village.
Underlining such law is the recognition that we all are in debt with those that have helped us before and even more, that we are what we are because others have made us like that. This includes the rich men of this world.
Underlining such law is the recognition that we all are in debt with those that have helped us before and even more, that we are what we are because others have made us like that. This includes the rich men of this world.
Hear, hear!
a moral law
Quite an oxymoron.
Either you have morals - or you're obliged by law, don't you find?
You're talking about 'justice' of sorts, aren't you?
Maybe a bit of balance. Smiley has a lock on "It's mine, I tell you, and you can't have any!" so I figure the other side needs to be heard from too. We live in a society now where it's entirely possible to get locked into low-wage jobs, and people like Smiley on top wagging their fingers at the "worthless" people on the low end of the income scale need a bit of fair and balanced reporting, as they say on Fox News.
You're talking about 'justice' of sorts, aren't you?
Maybe a bit of balance. Smiley has a lock on "It's mine, I tell you, and you can't have any!" so I figure the other side needs to be heard from too. We live in a society now where it's entirely possible to get locked into low-wage jobs, and people like Smiley on top wagging their fingers at the "worthless" people on the low end of the income scale need a bit of fair and balanced reporting, as they say on Fox News.
Fox is unfair and unbalanced. That's Smiley on the left. Smiley the leftist! OMG!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woekerpolis.nl%2Fimages%2Fnieuws%2Fhefboomeffect.png%3Fsfvrsn%3D0&hash=66f03a5649ef278737e2ed54e9a1476e" rel="cached" data-hash="66f03a5649ef278737e2ed54e9a1476e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.woekerpolis.nl/images/nieuws/hefboomeffect.png?sfvrsn=0)
Most would find it quite natural and defensible to give money, goods, to one's children even though they have not "earned" it. How much one extends that to society deepens on one's tribal genes presumably.
Homo Sapiens is said to have survived this length of time by developing a highly social mindset which includes all mutual interaction with others, inclusive of art, of writing, of money itself and trading.
Neanderthals, on the other hand . . . .
There was probably some cross species fertilisation.
Nuff said. ::)
Homo Sapiens is said to have survived this length of time by developing a highly social mindset which includes all mutual interaction with others, inclusive of art, of writing, of money itself and trading.
Neanderthals, on the other hand . . . .
Update your archeology books. Neanderthals did all that too. :)
Homo Sapiens is said to have survived this length of time by developing a highly social mindset which includes all mutual interaction with others, inclusive of art, of writing, of money itself and trading.
Neanderthals, on the other hand . . . .
Update your archeology books. Neanderthals did all that too. :)
Quite possibly I do need to update my books, myself as well, come to that. The former would be easy not having any such books, the latter, well probably not.
The coarse summary of Neanderthal social skills came from a TV programme in fact, not the best source perhaps but echoed in this article:
Neanderthals Lacked Social Skills (http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthals-lacked-social-skills-130312.htm)
You picks your book and takes your choice. ... or TV Programme.
The picture in the article is a picture of .... well, use your imagination.
Fair enough. But that just means we're better at it. ;)
The coarse summary of Neanderthal social skills came from a TV programme in fact, not the best source perhaps but echoed in this article:
Neanderthals Lacked Social Skills
You picks your book and takes your choice. ... or TV Programme.
The picture in the article is a picture of .... well, use your imagination.
My social skills are just good enough to accommodate my wife's demands, and well above what's needed here.
It seems that the Neanderthals were wealthy, then came Cromagnons and redistributed that;)
Tho get back tho the subject.
Redistribution of wealth - to me that phrase reeks of ignoble jealousy. I am much more comfortable with some sort of sliding scale of taxes which pay for helping those who need help; that at least has a positive aspiration behind it rather than one based on dogma.
There are some points on the OP to be mentioned. For example:
There are not just poor and rich, there is a graduation between the two. All too often one hears arguments relation to the extremes as if everyone is either dirt poor or in the billionaire bracket.
Then there's the matter of whether highly rewarded people earn their money or just get it. But who is to judge where are the boundaries between deserving and not deserving. I wouldn't like to decide that.
.....7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011........
JFYI ....... Being that there are
over 16 million estimated millionaires in America,
7 thousand millionaires is roughly equal to
0.0004375% of the
estimated 16 million millionaires (give or take a few hundred millionaires).
Which would mean that somewhere over 15 million 993 thousand, or
somewhere over 15,993,000 millionaires did pay Income Taxes in 2011 Regardless, because they make so much is not justification to redistribute it.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAF5Yr4K.jpg&hash=48de15bc1798f9f1b9bc05f9170570c3" rel="cached" data-hash="48de15bc1798f9f1b9bc05f9170570c3" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/AF5Yr4K.jpg)
SOURCE (pg.7 of 54 - Executive Summary) (http://web.archive.org/web/20090304015758/http://www.barclayswealth.com/files/volume5.pdf)
Please, save unconstructive bashing for when one has
all the facts. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yawning005.gif)
Otherwise, in principal I agree with most of what everyone has said here, except for those that chose to depict me personally as feeling otherwise.
I personally do feel there is a moral obligation for all people that have the resources to do so, to make a realistic contribution in helping the destitute, but IMHO even my feeling so doesn't justify the process.
I'm not defending any side of an issue here, all I want is for someone to provide some legitimate justification for the process in an unbiased positive manner (which doesn't include any biased
US's vs.THEM's mentality). (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
What is Wealth Redistribution?
Why does it exist?
Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.
The government needs to raise the minimum wage, or raise taxes on the rich to create another entitlement for those that have less.
What I can't seem to understand is the justification for doing it.
Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?
What did he/she do of value to deserve more?
There has to be some justification, right?
Or is it only that the rich, for absolutely no obvious valid reason, deserve to be divested of their wealth & valuables?
Demonization of the Wealthy, & the Industrial Corporations to justify taking away what they worked for, to be redistributed to the lower income levels of a society.
What's the valid justification for doing it?
Is there any righteous justification for the redistribution of wealth to those that haven't earned it, from those that have?
If you think there is, please note in positive terms how those that are on the receiving end deserve receiving it.
Why does it exists? Because of the tax breaks that go mostly to the rich and the middle class gets little to nothing. Therefore the wealth gets redistributed upwards. Putzs on the Right may talk about low income McDonald's workers, but we're talking about people making 50, 60 thousand a year (in many cases actually more than that) losing out because of the flawed, outdated ideas of Supply Side Economics. Cry me a fucking river for the millionaire that will have to pay the same effective tax rate as his secretary. There are plenty of charts and graphs available to show middle class real incomes stagnating even as the 1% continue to gain wealth.
This creates an unsustainable economic situation in consumer driven economy. If you don't understand why, you don't understand basic economics. In the end, the 1% will have a bigger slice of a smaller pie. Again, learn how the American economy actually works to understand why. Globalization will postpone those consequences, but not indefinitely. It isn't the middle-class vs the rich. Having a middle-class maxed out on their credit cards, in debt upto their eyeballs will pop this economy like a balloon and bring the 1% down with it.
Now nobody is talking about actively taking wealth from the rich, merely returning to the tax rates during the Clinton years. You remember, when we were running a budget surplus and the economy thrived.
......Now nobody is talking about actively taking wealth from the rich, merely returning to the tax rates during the Clinton years. You remember, when we were running a budget surplus and the economy thrived.
Hey Rip Van Cooney, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif) [glow=black,2,300]
wake-up[/glow],
we're already there --- unless you want to put the hit on
middle-income tax payers
again by returning them to
pre-Bush too!? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif).
Before the <Bush> tax cuts, the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts, the highest rate was 35 percent. Once the cuts were eliminated for high income levels (single people making $400,000+ per year and couples making $450,000+ per year), the top income tax rate returned to 39.6 percent.
The Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent by the pen of Barack Hussein Obama for those
earning under $400,000 , & restored to
pre-Bush (Clinton) tax rates of 39.6% for those making in excess of $400,000 per year --- your favorite lot ---- the top 1% filthy rich (the 1% who just happen to pay 30+% of all income tax paid in America).
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution
process is justified.
A point 'Cooney, you seemingly intentionally failed to establish.
As long as the thread has gone to chewing local American trifles, I'm gone :zzz:.
Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.
That's one hell of an assumption right there.
Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.
What did he/she do of value to deserve more?
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps? That's
leeching. Minimum wage isn't wealth redistribution: it's giving people what they deserve in the first place. The very idea of a paid full-time employee qualifying for food stamps is preposterous.
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.
Exactly the same reason you take the money away from drug lords when they get busted. Very few people got rich by working a regular job.
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps? That's leeching. Minimum wage isn't wealth redistribution: it's giving people what they deserve in the first place. The very idea of a paid full-time employee qualifying for food stamps is preposterous.
But that would ruin the business models of all the walmarts, mcdonalds etc. out there. Why do you hate America?! :cry:
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.
Why?
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
Ability to work is not everything to qualify for survival.
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps?
So why stay at the job!?(https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Very few people got rich by working a regular job.
But regular jobs are not created by
the regulars(https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/azn.gif)
There are also people who employ...;)
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.
Why?
Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our :rolleyes:
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
Ability to work is not everything that qualifies for survival.
Which has what to do with what? :rolleyes:
How is it justified to make one's fortune by paying one's employees so little that they qualify for food stamps?
So why stay at the job!?(https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Ok,
that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.
Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our :rolleyes:
You didn't answer.
:faint:
Ok, that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.
Not at all.
According to your 'model'
?, everybody shall thrive irregardless of their abilities to survive? If you can't find ANY better job for yourself - what makes you think your current employer pays you wrong? Are you a communist, perhaps?
Very few people got rich by working a regular job.
But regular jobs are not created by the regulars(https://dndsanctuary.eu/Smileys/default/azn.gif)
There are also people who employ...;)
An employer hires more employees when demand can't be met, not because they have a cash surplus. An employer is not a "job creator", but someone who's out to make money. As a possibly flawed analogy, consider this: am I a crumb creator when I cut my bread? In some sense of the word I suppose I am, but it would be a deceptive turn of phrase.
Consider an absurdly rich person, worth thousands of times as much as most people in my own middle class environment. This person does not spend thousands of times as much money as us. I doubt they'll come much further than 10 to 20 times as much—admittedly there might be years when it's a bit more because they bought a new yacht. And all those digits of surplus money are doing the exact opposite of creating jobs. It's just sitting there.
Anyway, they can have a fair bit of surplus money as far as I'm concerned. But they ought to pay their share for the infrastructure that carried the goods they sold, the schools that educated the workers they employ, et cetera. They did not amass their fortune in a vacuum, and they'd certainly sue if you tried to get away with using their services for free.
Not everything strictly falls under the umbrella of services one should pay for, but it's still just good sense. You don't want a bunch of crime and disease-ridden lower-class ghettos for the simple reason that said crime and disease will spill over—even if you haven't a grain of compassion for the poor schmucks. Well, unless you're the owner of a for-profit jail, I suppose.
An employer hires more employees when demand can't be met...
Give it again, will ye.
Consider an absurdly rich person, worth thousands of times as much as most people in my own middle class environment. This person does not spend thousands of times as much money as us. I doubt they'll come much further than 10 to 20 times as much—admittedly there might be years when it's a bit more because they bought a new yacht. And all those digits of surplus money are doing the exact opposite of creating jobs. It's just sitting there.
Such 'an example' shall be considered separately.
It ain't that about "divide or not divide" - that's about how such a guy could accumulate that wealth: if it wasn't legal in the first place - one case; if it was - weigh in his/her rights to do that, and on property. They have a right to be rich, aren't they?
Overall, judging others is easy. A poor chap wants to eat - should he blame those who has more that he doesn't have enough food? What's the point - "my mom delivered me, that's why I must have enough food"?
Read his question again. Think about it for a few seconds. Take a few minutes if you must. I'm sure you can figure it our :rolleyes:
You didn't answer.
:faint:
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?
Ok, that is the most idiotic question I've seen this week. Hint: shitty job beats no job.
Not at all.
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.
According to your 'model'?, everybody shall thrive irregardless of their abilities to survive?
Since when is 'irregardless' a real word? :right:
No. Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
If you can't find ANY better job for yourself - what makes you think your current employer pays you wrong? Are you a communist, perhaps?
Read again. Maybe try that 'thinking' thing too some day.
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.
^Those are your "answers" whatsoever.
Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
Bullshit!
(Are you ok with a YOUR-OWN-STYLE 'answer' or shall I clarify?)
Read again. Maybe try that 'thinking' thing too some day.
Cheers!
:faint:
What the fuck a Russian knows about capitalism? about "free market"? about sustainable economy? about Freedom? about social well fare?
About anything...
Don't be too hard on him. The discovery that most of us here are commie bastards is tough enough for him.
Don't be too hard on him.
You're right. Thanks for remembering me.
Let me tell you, the Russians, something.
I had a MyOpera blog about painting. Many of those masterpieces were Russian painting images.
The social charge of those paintings was gigantic. There's a deep social understanding ( that doesn't exist in the US, for example*) in the Russian soul that is at the bottom of magnificent work of arts, both at music and painting, not to speak about literature.
My dear friend josh is not able of destroying the heritage of his people.
* American painting is very interesting to me. It shows clearly why the different Americans exists at DnD.
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.
^Those are your "answers" whatsoever.
Nonsense. Read the whole post, even just the parts you quoted will do :faint:
Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
Bullshit!
(Are you ok with a YOUR-OWN-STYLE 'answer' or shall I clarify?)
Missing the point by a mile. Not exactly a surprise :rolleyes:
Don't be too hard on him. The discovery that most of us here are commie bastards is tough enough for him.
I propose to turn the argument around. What's communism? It's taking things from a big community-owned pool of free stuff without paying for it. The system falls apart because people take more than they should and don't put enough (or anything at all) back in return. Opposing environmental taxes is to argue in favor of communism. Using public infrastructure without paying for it is communism. And so forth. A pool of free stuff is not capitalist.
In a capitalist system, we charge people for taking things from our pool. There are no such things are free pollution and free infrastructure—no free lunch, as the Americans say. The system might actually stand a chance of being self-sustainable if it were capitalist instead of communist.
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. :cheers:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emF3gtmVS0s[/video]
irregardless
Most commonly used by people that wanna fail at looking smart.
Guess I'll be the pompous ass this evening. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless)
A lively thread, but based, I feel, on a meaningless phrase.
"Wealth Redistribution". Does it mean something specific?
"irregardless", on the other hand, means absolutely nothing.
Does it always come down to the same thing -- those that have less somehow think they have a legitimate right to the wealth that others have earned.
That's one hell of an assumption right there.
Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?
That's probably the most idiotic question I've seen this week.
What did he/she do of value to deserve more?
Work her ass off, unlike most rich dicks.
So, I gather you have no
'valid' justifications then, only your traditional, personally directed verbal bombast to deflect away from your apparent deficiencies. Some things never change .... How droll... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yawning003.gif)
[glow=black,2,300]Envy:[/glow] Noun
1. A feeling of grudging admiration and desire to have something that is possessed by another.
2. Spite and resentment at seeing the success of another.
Envy is not a 'valid' justification for the process of Wealth Redistribution.
The overwhelming majority of wealthy businessmen are not criminals, but if you listen to the 'dye in the wool' progressive socialist, they all are --- each & every one --- & to prosecute & punish them for the wealth they so obviously stole, they must be forced to hand over their plunder so it can be gleefully given & shared amongst all the envy driven masses ---- not just the actually deserving destitute who do need help.
The wealthy businessmen/richest earners' real "crime" is simply success.
What do these dastardly heinous criminals do with their excessive benefits?
Hmmmmm....Invest in their businesses, save, start new businesses, support charities, etc...etc... All of which employ others....others that just so happen to support their families, support their communities, & buy goods & services at reasonable prices from companies that bolster the economy --- companies that are run by some wealthy businessmen, who's companies earn their customers loyalty by simply charging reasonable prices.
Yes, it is shockingly criminal isn't it.
What do you think?
Do you know of any 'valid' justification for Wealth Redistribution?
Are you like some merely willing to toss verbal bombast as your only retort, because you believe there isn't any need for justification in the process of Wealth Redistribution?
Do you, like some others, think that it's somehow the moral right of some democratic process --- not merely a form of legalized theft? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
/Sees OP's topic
/Sees Josh has posted in it
/Obligatory USSR National Anthem posted for Josh. :left: :right:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M[/video]
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure it out yet?
I can tell, without reading any further, that this is bullshit.
^Those are your "answers" whatsoever.
Nonsense. Read the whole post, even just the parts you quoted will do :faint:
Anyone who works a full time job should be able to afford a decent living from it.
Bullshit!
(Are you ok with a YOUR-OWN-STYLE 'answer' or shall I clarify?)
Missing the point by a mile. Not exactly a surprise :rolleyes:
Quod errat demonstrandum.
irregardless
Most commonly used by people that wanna fail at looking smart.
Guess I'll be the pompous ass this evening. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless)
Should I have used "regardless"?
Should I have used "regardless"?
Yes.
Don't be too hard on him. The discovery that most of us here are commie bastards is tough enough for him.
I propose to turn the argument around. What's communism? It's taking things from a big community-owned pool of free stuff without paying for it. The system falls apart because people take more than they should and don't put enough (or anything at all) back in return. Opposing environmental taxes is to argue in favor of communism. Using public infrastructure without paying for it is communism. And so forth. A pool of free stuff is not capitalist.
Which is probably why even Marx himself thought it could only be implemented in stages, if at all, with a large majority of people being honest and altruistic enough to behave themselves without being forced to.
I doubt many people here know what communism actually is, other than the usual "whatever Stalin did" nonsense. There are even real life examples, just not in countries run by parties calling themselves 'communist'.
"irregardless", on the other hand, means absolutely nothing.
Now I see...
My usage of it was based on others' usage of it - mostly native English speakers';)
So, I gather you have no 'valid' justifications then, only your traditional, personally directed verbal bombast to deflect away from your apparent deficiencies. Some things never change .... How droll... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yawning003.gif)
Should we expect an answer or is it hopeless?
So far it's stayed such a way...
The overwhelming majority of wealthy businessmen are not criminals, but if you listen to the 'dye in the wool' progressive socialist, they all are --- each & every one --- & to prosecute & punish them for the wealth they so obviously stole, they must be forced to hand over their plunder so it can be gleefully given & shared amongst all the envy driven masses ---- not just the actually deserving destitute who do need help.
Those socialists propagate most extensively and are taking over.
In a balanced society, socialists are either not allowed to influence the affairs - or simply do not survive (actually they are all idiots - and must die or at least be prohibited from propagation).
I doubt many people here know what communism actually is, other than the usual "whatever Stalin did" nonsense. There are even real life examples, just not in countries run by parties calling themselves 'communist'.
Let's get them to know what liberal is first. Then socialism. After that communism. Anybody that calls Obama that later two is a retard when it comes to political/economic policy. I'm not even sure he qualifies as a liberal.
On the remark:
"Why does the the low income McDonald's worker or the welfare mom deserve more?"
I don't know why people object to that phrase, but I understand that they can. The reason I put it that way is because there are at least three stereotypes in there:
1 The McDonald's worker
2 the welfare mom
and, implicitly
3 the rich man
Those labels mean different things to different people so therefore the message intended by the sentence would depend on those interpretations. For example is a welfare mom someone who deserves help or someone who is a parasite on society. The other two labels are the same - they depend on one's personal viewpoint on how they are interpreted. Consequently the meaning of the question is not clear and there are several different answers to it.
You can't tell how these labels are perceived which why I wrote "I don't know why people object".
So I don't know myself how to react to that sentence without more explicitly info on how it is meant.
On a more constructive note, I liked Frans's remark on the value of the infrastructure for therein lies a very valid argument on why richer people, and particularly business people, should pay more tax than the lower paid. In the context of making money all society is the infrastructure which creates the environment in which money can be made.
It's not black and white. For example a transport company can exist because there are roads (or airports or docks) to use but so does an individual person. However the use made of the roads is different so between individual and the business man and his company. It is logical that the latter should pay proportionately more for that "support" for their profits.
On the social side one can also think of people as an infrastructure of sorts, worthy of payment according to their value.
Note that I'm talking income taxes here, not wealth taxes. Wealth tax is another matter.
1. Income taxes are already (should be) proportionate - and the rich, paying the same %, pay more - proportionately.
2. As for the use of infrastructure and such, those payments could either be or not included into a certain "general tax" - in the latter (preferred) case they won't depend on the person's/company's wealth or income but rather on the actual use or some such. Don't you think?
On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.
It has been suggested, for your info, that having one low rate for all income levels would increase the total amount of tax paid, since these avoidance schemes would not be worth while. But I suspect that's wishful thinking; once the cat is out of the bag it has run away already.
On 2 - One could envisage infrastructure use being paid for in direct taxes on business, although that is complex especially when business compete against foreign companies in countries which have other ways of raising the taxes they need. So that shifts the burden back to income tax of one form or another (VAT is another source which takes money from income).
The thing to remember is that "infrastructure" is a very wide term and includes all things that make up ther country; it includes the education of people that work in businesses, the police that do their job, health workers and even the military. It also includes the work force itself. All these things need to be paid for.
A problem with being poor is that life has to go on with a relatively small residue after all necessities, taxes etc are paid for. With increased income that gap gets bigger (as it should ) and eventually to levels where necessities are a vanishingly small issue.
Revolution. Let the Northerner barbarians starve, the true meaning of redistribution.
There have been societal changes, I wonder to what extent these can be laid on personal responsibility and to what extent it has become "structural" to our economy.
One thing is the McDonald's worker. This job has traditionally been a stepping-stone. It's your first job, you learn to set an alarm clock, show up on time and do your job dependably. Having established a track record of doing these things, you look for the next better job-- somewhere else, not McD's-- and so begin the climb up the ladder.
Now, we hear that people are becoming career counter help at McDonald's, and they're complaining that a job that was never intended to be your life's work doesn't pay enough to support a family. Of course it doesn't. It was meant to provide enough that you could afford gas for your daddy's car and you could take Cindy Lou to the drive-in on Saturday night-- but not much more than that. Nobody was supposed to stay behind the counter at McD's for long.
So--- why is this happening? Lack of better jobs-- that's one possibility. The economy kinda stinks, and everybody knows it. Near criminal lack of ambition may play a part too. If you haven't enough imagination to see yourself doing anything except flipping burgers and fries at McDonald's, then you keep getting McDonald's pay for that job--- and remember, that job was only meant to be transitional-- from kid to adult, or as your last job boosting your retirement income.
I feel for the people stuck in a job like this because of bad economy and lack of other jobs. I feel considerably less bad for people who have no ambition and are now demanding that McDonald's pay them way more than the job is actually worth. It's a "starter job", not a career destination.
On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.
It has been suggested, for your info, that having one low rate for all income levels would increase the total amount of tax paid, since these avoidance schemes would not be worth while. But I suspect that's wishful thinking; once the cat is out of the bag it has run away already.
On 2 - One could envisage infrastructure use being paid for in direct taxes on business, although that is complex especially when business compete against foreign companies in countries which have other ways of raising the taxes they need. So that shifts the burden back to income tax of one form or another (VAT is another source which takes money from income).
The thing to remember is that "infrastructure" is a very wide term and includes all things that make up ther country; it includes the education of people that work in businesses, the police that do their job, health workers and even the military. It also includes the work force itself. All these things need to be paid for.
A problem with being poor is that life has to go on with a relatively small residue after all necessities, taxes etc are paid for. With increased income that gap gets bigger (as it should ) and eventually to levels where necessities are a vanishingly small issue.
The idea reducing the tax rate for the top income earners increases total revenue is wishful thinking as well, even if the tax rates remain progressive. History shows, time and time again, all you wind up doing is increasing the deficit. The McDonald's worker is stereotype deliberately propagated by the GOP and their Fox/AM radio lackeys for Romeny's infamous 47%, even in fact, it's often middle-class people that wind up paying no Federal income tax for various reasons.
Josh seems to have no concept of economics. Want to make the businesses pay directly for the infrastructure that supports them and not use other funds? How badly do you want kill small businesses? Maybe that idea originated with the mega-corporations to eliminate small start-ups through the tax system before they become a threat? And oh yeah, it's not just those businesses that use that infrastructure :p
On 1 -- having the same level of taxation should indeed mean that those with higher incomes pay more but unfortunately those with avarice construct legal means for avoiding such tax, banking off-shore, creating their own companies and other tricks.
Also, ( in the US at least ) the lowest incomes are so low that they can't afford any taxation without dropping below the poverty line, hence the need for progressive income tax rates.
Just a bit of common sense as I see it, Sang. You say paying for infrastructure will kill the radio starsmall guy?
Then what about minimum wages - how's that for the small guy?
I feel for the people stuck in a job like this because of bad economy and lack of other jobs. I feel considerably less bad for people who have no ambition and are now demanding that McDonald's pay them way more than the job is actually worth. It's a "starter job", not a career destination.
My first job was delivering newspapers door to door, then on to working as a bagger at a supermarket, then on to selling ice cream from a bicycle-driven cart (I kid you not)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F3f%2F07%2F0a%2F3f070ad253116a0a64ff1912f4b1ea0a.jpg&hash=bcfce4a07bc6d260575aa326fd61f8db" rel="cached" data-hash="bcfce4a07bc6d260575aa326fd61f8db" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/3f/07/0a/3f070ad253116a0a64ff1912f4b1ea0a.jpg)
...and look at me now!
Here's a guy who started at McDonalds.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aglCtZei55k[/video]
Hmm… :P
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/s720x720/428615_10150533406111840_1757425134_n.jpg)
This made me think of this thread: http://boingboing.net/2009/08/26/ikea-is-owned-by-a-c.html
Giving a McDonald's worker more money solves nothing. Regulate that which affects the cost of living. Healthcare, in the US, is pointless without an overhaul of the pharmaceutical and medical industries. More money is pointless as long as energy or really fuel can drive up the price of everything. Corporate, medical, educational and welfare all need better management. Which means you start with the politics
......Now nobody is talking about actively taking wealth from the rich, merely returning to the tax rates during the Clinton years. You remember, when we were running a budget surplus and the economy thrived.
Hey Rip Van Cooney, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif) [glow=black,2,300]wake-up[/glow], we're already there --- unless you want to put the hit on
middle-income tax payers again by returning them to pre-Bush too!? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif).
Before the <Bush> tax cuts, the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts, the highest rate was 35 percent. Once the cuts were eliminated for high income levels (single people making $400,000+ per year and couples making $450,000+ per year), the top income tax rate returned to 39.6 percent.
The Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent by the pen of Barack Hussein Obama for those earning under $400,000 , & restored to pre-Bush (Clinton) tax rates of 39.6% for those making in excess of $400,000 per year --- your favorite lot ---- the top 1% filthy rich (the 1% who just happen to pay 30+% of all income tax paid in America).
In the end, you seem to decry those better off than you, but again merely because you don't like them being better off doesn't establish that the Wealth Redistribution process is justified.
A point 'Cooney, you seemingly intentionally failed to establish.
You haven't demostrated to my satisfaction that exists at all, except from the middleclass to the millionaires. A few percent higher income tax isn't wealth redistrubtion. It's paying down the deficit. You also know damn well that even in the Clinton years, if you paid 39.6 income tax, you have a very bad tax preparer, not to mention taxes on other (unearned from work) income only being 15%. Your blather is one of the many reasons the GOP is in downward spiral.
"Conservatives" can't stop being out touch not only with the voters outside their shrinking circle , but with reality itself.Every fucking study in the goddamn world shows the super rich accommodating wealth at the expense of everyone else (including likely the bottom half of the top 1%) My own family is in the top few percent and still the debts mount. Do you get it? Of course, not being a shill and lackey.
This place is really starting to feel like home. :)
In the physical terms, the rich ain't "accomodating" any wealth -- since the invention of money it has become less crucial to store corn, hide or something. The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival. (Of course, buying some yachts and paying for construction of skyscrapers in the centre of a city can serve as a certain exception -- with which exception the guy makes dozens or hundreds of other people (ship-builders, construction workers) earn enough to eat, pay for their children's school, etc.)
We're also talking about the policy that's been shown to balance the Federal books. Simply speaking, the idea the continued tax cuts to the rich will create more jobs is no longer true in the American economy, if it ever was. Bush cut the taxes, it did squat. Obama continued the tax cuts and offered more tax incentives to no avail. In the American economy, all that seems to do is increase the deficit.
"Underpossessing of rich?" You do know there's a lot of middle ground between the extremes and that's where the economic problems come in. Oh yeah, it's not one guy that builds the skyscrapper it's a stockholder owned corporation :p Not to mention most of the construction workers actually build homes for the middle-class, not to the rich. Everyone knows this except people that drank too much GOP Kool-Aide (or the Russian equivalent :p )
It's not "wealth redistrubtion"or "soak the rich." It's about returning to policy that enriched everyone, including people that were already rich to begin with. Bush cut the taxes and deregulated. What happened? Unsustainable deficits, There was also banks doing formerly illegal financial instruments such as credit swap derivatives. End result, the Great Recession. You folks that claim to be a conservative, actually be conservative and learn from the past. Every time Supply Side is implemented in the US, the deficit increases, there's an economic bubble followed by a crash. I repeat, every fucking time. Then again, the GOP hasn't been noted for its learning ability nor intelligence lately.
The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival.
I'm pretty sure that was me, as part of my argument that the term "job creator" isn't very accurate.
The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival.
I'm pretty sure that was me, as part of my argument that the term "job creator" isn't very accurate.
I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.
I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.
I'll try to watch it later. A big boon of accepted TED talks is that they come with a transcript.
In any case, you aren't Smiley either. :P
I'm pretty sure that was me, as part of my argument that the term "job creator" isn't very accurate.
Maybe.
Just I was guessing that it might've been of his - as well... ???
Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies. More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.
I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.
Here's an interview with him on MSNBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTG7RHXnUMM&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs He notes that the very rich sock money away, creating a clot in the economic circulatory system.
Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies.
It's alive and well, it just works in the opposite direction - take from the poor and give to the rich.
More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.
See, wealth distribution at work.
Who do you mean by 'the poor'? Those who can't afford a yacht?
Who do you mean by 'the poor'? Those who can't afford a yacht?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130423021659%2Fcardfight%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbc%2F2003013-godzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_face_palm_epic_fail_demotivational_poster_1245384435.jpg&hash=43b3d9122afcaeb763cbd1713f393529" rel="cached" data-hash="43b3d9122afcaeb763cbd1713f393529" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130423021659/cardfight/images/b/bc/2003013-godzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_face_palm_epic_fail_demotivational_poster_1245384435.jpg)
:D
Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies. More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.
You just wait until the Socialist State of Scotland is formed, right after you lot's independence vote. :right:
Macallan, you behave very simplistic. There are poor - and poor!.. You can't pile them all up in one heap and say 'they are alike'. They are not alike!..
Macallan, you behave very simplistic.
Look who's talking :rolleyes:
There are poor - and poor!.. You can't pile them all up in one heap and say 'they are alike'. They are not alike!..
Context. Do you know what that is? Go look it up and the answer should be obvious to anyone with at least two functional neurons.
There are two kinds of idiots... :zzz:
There are two kinds of idiots... :zzz:
I'll take that as a no.
You seem to like arguing without argumenting.
I meant that there are poor - and there are poor: poorness being a formal characteristic only by one parameter - how much money do you - what? have? earn? spend? Again we have nuances.
You seem to like arguing without argumenting.
Looked into a mirror lately? :rolleyes:
I meant that there are poor - and there are poor: poorness being a formal characteristic only by one parameter - how much money do you - what? have? earn? spend? Again we have nuances.
I know that. And the answer is right in front of your nose if you'd just read a few posts earlier in this thread.
There are two kinds of idiots... :zzz:
1. the ones that know they're idiots :D
2. the ones that don't know they're idiots :doh:
There are two kinds of idiots... :zzz:
1. the ones that know they're idiots :D
2. the ones that don't know they're idiots :doh:
1a. those who don't care
1b. those who flaunt it
I think maybe the wrong kind of "wealth" is being distributed here. Not sure we need a surplus of idiocy.
Hhm this is the second thread I have agreed with you on regarding a point. Only sorry now I did not include Chicago on my two former visits over there.
Where this scenario really gets scary is when it combines with economic inequality. Although few people have been focusing on robot armies, many people have been asking what happens if robots put most of us out of a job. The final, last-ditch response to that contingency is income redistribution – if our future is to get paid to sit on a beach, so be it.
Yeah, I know it's not you whose writings these are.
I've brought this from another thread to note that "robots" started to unemploy people way long ago! Once upon a time, there existed some CRAFTY GUYS. Then came traders - who started to structurise that; some later came Archimedeses - exactly which started the tech progress on the scale sufficient to influence economy.
To pay the poor, you have to tax the rich, and the Robot Lords are unlikely to stand for that. Just imagine Tom Perkins with an army of cheap autonomous drones. Or Greg Gopman. We’re all worried about the day that the 1% no longer need the 99%–but what’s really scary is when they don’t fear the 99% either.
There are weaknesses with this line of argument, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Yup!..
1. The tax issues are far not in the root directory. To get closer to the root directory, we'd better remember that the "not-yet-rich" need the so called poor to become rich in the first place.
2. As it's happened, the rich can't live without the poor -- OR the very concept of
being rich ceases to make any sense - just because such concepts can only exist when certain inequality is implied. It's like measuring ANYTHING -- you can't say, eg, it's far or close without a scale!!!
I believe it fits here, too:
...people have to live in the present...
Wonder if you can grasp that.
Exactly.
Of course it is a background. What it seems to me you don't is that that is exactly the cause of any socialism - which in turn, leads to the exactly opposite to what "people want" - but for the whole lot of further generations. Which future and which generations inherit the consequencies of those "immediate wants" in the form of an untreatable disease.
Full stop.
Dead end...
There are two kinds of idiots... :zzz:
1. the ones that know they're idiots :D
2. the ones that don't know they're idiots :doh:
1a. those who don't care
1b. those who flaunt it
I believe that a person should embrace his idiocy. I certainly do. :doh:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi621.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt296%2Fjustclay12%2Femoticons%2FIdiotAward.gif&hash=15a01005709b4a57994800b13839c66c" rel="cached" data-hash="15a01005709b4a57994800b13839c66c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt296/justclay12/emoticons/IdiotAward.gif)
Now on I will not redistribute with Americans anymore.
Not my fault that more than half of their states have a GDP smaller than my country.
Let them starve as they deserve. I entirely agree with you SmileyFaze :)
Some US states would probably be better off under Portuguese rule :right:
What exactly is a Portugal?
What exactly is a Portugal?
1. Select a tender pig.
2. Blanch in warm water for 20 minutes.
3. Throw away the pig, drink the water.
That, sir, is a Portugal.
Now on I will not redistribute with Americans anymore.
Not my fault that more than half of their states have a GDP smaller than my country.
Let them starve as they deserve. I entirely agree with you SmileyFaze :)
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
One need not be Christian to consider compassion, but we're actually not talking about compassion here, we're talking about something completely different from compassion --- which giving help to the destitute would surely be --- we're supposed to be discussing the political process of Wealth Redistribution, & whether there is any valid justification for it or not.
interesting words from a terrorist supporter!
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
:) Good, you noticed my message.
There's a minimum that everyone should have for not living a life of misery that is not compatible with human dignity. If there's not such a minimum, than there is no civilization but barbarism.
Above such minimum, each one has to search for himself. In resume, social redistribution can't have the same rules below and above such minimums.
Regarding that "minimum" one most reflect about life styles.
In my opinion, urban life style is very difficult to be compatible with a deign life while short of resources.
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
One need not be Christian to consider compassion, but we're actually not talking about compassion here, we're talking about something completely different from compassion --- which giving help to the destitute would surely be --- we're supposed to be discussing the political process of Wealth Redistribution, & whether there is any valid justification for it or not.
What we're talking about is made up Republican media talking point that it takes just as fast as you can type a search into any non-partisan site about the subject to disprove.
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
I swear if you visit Canada you'll come back with English Canadian catch phrases.
"How Canadian are you, eh?"
That'll give you a head start.
One need not be Christian to consider compassion...
One need not be a religionist to be compassionate. Christianity has hijacked the notion of morality. Christian compassion has caused countless deaths, too often in the name of a loving god.
What we're talking about is made up Republican media talking point that it takes just as fast as you can type a search into any non-partisan site about the subject to disprove.
No, that's what
you alone are debating with yourself.
BTW.....how's it lookin' for you guys in November?
I think the GOP will get trounced regardless if we all can keep our doctors as promised or not.
Billary will get the bounce she needs to landslide the GOP in 2016.
All the Health Care issues will fade away, & the demonrats will claim joyous victory as America overwhelming accepts the lower cost of medical coverage with open arms, consistent with Obama's precise predictions.
1. Select a tender pig.
2. Blanch in warm water for 20 minutes.
3. Throw away the pig, drink the water.
That, sir, is a Portugal.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=235.104;msg=14350)
Good try but as I said before I would not redistribute with Grand Rapids parasites no more.
It's called the Global Economy.
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
I swear if you visit Canada you'll come back with English Canadian catch phrases.
"How Canadian are you, eh?"
That'll give you a head start.
I'll be sure to stop by Grand Rapids on my way back down from Canada to have a word with you then, you bastage. :yikes:
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
:) Good, you noticed my message.
There's a minimum that everyone should have for not living a life of misery that is not compatible with human dignity. If there's not such a minimum, than there is no civilization but barbarism.
Above such minimum, each one has to search for himself. In resume, social redistribution can't have the same rules below and above such minimums.
Regarding that "minimum" one most reflect about life styles.
In my opinion, urban life style is very difficult to be compatible with a deign life while short of resources.
Of course I noticed it, how could I not? :wine:
Your church is the most ancient and organized of the latter two Abrahamic religions. Ergo, you all have the most resources to help out.
Noted. (the rest of what you posted)
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
One need not be Christian to consider compassion, but we're actually not talking about compassion here, we're talking about something completely different from compassion --- which giving help to the destitute would surely be --- we're supposed to be discussing the political process of Wealth Redistribution, & whether there is any valid justification for it or not.
If one earns under $15 k, should one be eligible for food stamps?
Does income from all sources combined of $15,000 a year constitute destitution?
And is income verification of $15,000 & under the cutoff for food stamp eligibility? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
Also, can the food stamps you speak of only be used for food?
I thought you Catholic lot were more compassionate Christians than the Prot lot(s)?
One need not be Christian to consider compassion, but we're actually not talking about compassion here, we're talking about something completely different from compassion --- which giving help to the destitute would surely be --- we're supposed to be discussing the political process of Wealth Redistribution, & whether there is any valid justification for it or not.
If one earns under $15 k, should one be eligible for food stamps?
Depends where you are I guess - in New York City $15k/year won't buy you shit, while in rural TN you can survive on it.
Does income from all sources combined of $15,000 a year constitute destitution?
And is income verification of $15,000 & under the cutoff for food stamp eligibility? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
Also, can the food stamps you speak of only be used for food?
Like @Macallan points out, it really depends where you live. Here in MS (and like he notes in TN), one could probably scrape by on $15k.
Highly doubtful though in areas like Seattle, Miami, etc.
IIRC, anyone with a total combined income of $23,500 and below qualifies for food stamps.
My total income last year (part-time word) was less than $10 k, yet I made it by just fine without them, even though I would have qualified for them.
What we're talking about is made up Republican media talking point that it takes just as fast as you can type a search into any non-partisan site about the subject to disprove.
No, that's what you alone are debating with yourself.
BTW.....how's it lookin' for you guys in November?
I think the GOP will get trounced regardless if we all can keep our doctors as promised or not.
Billary will get the bounce she needs to landslide the GOP in 2016.
All the Health Care issues will fade away, & the demonrats will claim joyous victory as America overwhelming accepts the lower cost of medical coverage with open arms, consistent with Obama's precise predictions.
Beats me. I have no guys. Now if you're assuming Democrats, Nate Silver projects losses in the Senate but if you look it's in states normally carried by the Republicans anyway. But there's one caveat: the GOP is also fostering its track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. For example, a decent GOP candidate would have defeated Obama 2012 but instead the GOP offered the flip-flopper from hell and a bunch of screwballs. Locally, anyone not trying to appeal to an insane GOP base would have beaten Harry. I'm not the GOP understands some of their own voters, even. I know Republican voters that are intelligent, open-minded, etc. But the GOP keeps trying to appeal to the most ignorant members of their own faction and in doing so likes to shot themselves in their foot. My own mother tends to vote Republican, but she watched Sharon Angle's "Harry got elected, now your property values went down" commercial and promptly switched to Harry's camp. Get it yet? Angle thought her own voters were that stupid and offered idiotic arguments against Harry. That's far from unique GOP election behavior.
So, yes in theory it looks bad for the Dems this time around. But now we get to watch and see if the GOP falls on its sword.
Does income from all sources combined of $15,000 a year constitute destitution?
And is income verification of $15,000 & under the cutoff for food stamp eligibility? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
Also, can the food stamps you speak of only be used for food?
Like @Macallan points out, it really depends where you live. Here in MS (and like he notes in TN), one could probably scrape by on $15k.
Highly doubtful though in areas like Seattle, Miami, etc.
IIRC, anyone with a total combined income of $23,500 and below qualifies for food stamps.
My total income last year (part-time word) was less than $10 k, yet I made it by just fine without them, even though I would have qualified for them.
Well, I don't believe in food stamps.
Privately funded Soup Kitchens, Meals-on-Wheels, & other charities (YMCA, Salvation Army, etc, etc) are there for those that need them.
I do believe in charity to the destitute, & I personally contribute to a number of selected charities every year that primarily care for those people -- in excess of 10x what you made last year, & I will increase my giving by 5% every other year into the foreseeable future.
What I will never condone is supporting those that should be able to support themselves, especially the chronically unemployed.
I firmly believe in work for welfare --- 40 hours community service a week for the equivalent of minimum wage, with no other subsidy.
I am for the repeal of the Federal income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, & cessation of federal programs & services not specifically required under the U.S. Constitution.
What's the IRS and what is it for?
The IRS collects taxes.
What's the IRS and what is it for?
This (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IRS).
What's the IRS and what is it for?
It's like ФНС (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0)
Does income from all sources combined of $15,000 a year constitute destitution?
And is income verification of $15,000 & under the cutoff for food stamp eligibility? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
Also, can the food stamps you speak of only be used for food?
Like @Macallan points out, it really depends where you live. Here in MS (and like he notes in TN), one could probably scrape by on $15k.
Highly doubtful though in areas like Seattle, Miami, etc.
IIRC, anyone with a total combined income of $23,500 and below qualifies for food stamps.
My total income last year (part-time word) was less than $10 k, yet I made it by just fine without them, even though I would have qualified for them.
Well, I don't believe in food stamps.
Privately funded Soup Kitchens, Meals-on-Wheels, & other charities (YMCA, Salvation Army, etc, etc) are there for those that need them.
I do believe in charity to the destitute, & I personally contribute to a number of selected charities every year that primarily care for those people -- in excess of 10x what you made last year, & I will increase my giving by 5% every other year into the foreseeable future.
What I will never condone is supporting those that should be able to support themselves, especially the chronically unemployed.
I firmly believe in work for welfare --- 40 hours community service a week for the equivalent of minimum wage, with no other subsidy.
I am for the repeal of the Federal income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, & cessation of federal programs & services not specifically required under the U.S. Constitution.
But do you understand the reason for them? Because those institutions were incapable of providing aid for the shear numbers of people requiring their services. Abolish the IRS? Are you mad? Nobody loves the IRS, but how you care a couple trillion dollar deficit each year. No the so-called Fair Tax will not raise sufficient revenue is likely to push millions of working class Americans into poverty. And in other news already known to everyone but teabaggers, most of those on welfare/SNAP work already.
What's the IRS and what is it for?
It's like ФНС (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0)
Thanks for the reference. I'd never heard of a beard tax before...happy we don't have one!
But do you understand the reason for them? Because those institutions were incapable of providing aid for the shear numbers of people requiring their services. Abolish the IRS? Are you mad? Nobody loves the IRS, but how you care a couple trillion dollar deficit each year. No the so-called Fair Tax will not raise sufficient revenue is likely to push millions of working class Americans into poverty. And in other news already known to everyone but teabaggers, most of those on welfare/SNAP work already.
...Requiring their services.....
NO......wanting an
un-earned free handout is more like what they take.....leaches on the blood supply of The Nation.
Your statement above is spoken like the anti-Libertarian, dye in the wool big government
liberal demonrat you actually are.
Gone are the
phoney masks you wore during the
Occupation Movement, & gone are the
"...You fucking assholes, I'm not a democrat I'm a Libertarian....I'm not a democrat...." vehement denials you cried frantically when confronted by myself & OakdaleFTL in [glow=green,2,300]
MO-D&D[/glow] when accurately exposing you for
what you really are .... a little Harry Reid liberal demoRat.(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBO2dVN.gif&hash=4e0c994eab7168db17b5e3c7ef382145" rel="cached" data-hash="4e0c994eab7168db17b5e3c7ef382145" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rBO2dVN.gif)
Gimme, Gimme Gimme, with no desire to do a bloody thing of value for it.....an ever expanding legion of leaching blood suckers.
Not their fault really though......they've been brainwashed by the liberal demonrat propaganda machine, & these handouts are payments for their political patronage ---- the liberal demonrats are buying votes, plain & simple -- lock, stock, & barrel.
In the end we must remember, that while these leaches
unnecessarily suckle on the Nations generous services & assistance programs, the
only ones that are actually being hurt & forgotten here are the
truly needy destitute --- the ones who can't fend for themselves, unlike the
Gimme, Gimme, Gimme's who can.
....My total income last year (part-time word) was less than $10 k, yet I made it by just fine without them, even though I would have qualified for them.
Now, as opposed to those blood sucking leaches being created by the vote buying demorat propagandists, what this
man displays is the [glow=blue,2,300]
True American Spirit, [/glow] a quality that's within & can't be bought. ----------
It's called [glow=black,2,300]
Character[/glow].
His obvious Character will define him when he approaches a prospective employer, offering these employers true value & worth in exchange for a job. It is Character like his that employers are looking for. A value that they so desire.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)I tip my hat to Dawg, & the hundreds - upon hundreds of thousands like him, for having the
American Pride & Character to tough it out & survive, rather than taking the easy way out by selling their values for an easy take.
[glow=blue,2,300]
America needs more men like you! [/glow]
Thank you Dawg, for re-igniting my Pride in
The True American Spirit! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
The [glow=blue,2,300]
True American Spirit, [/glow] in giving help for those that
truly need it......
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igmcInhwuoE[/VIDEO]
....My total income last year (part-time word) was less than $10 k, yet I made it by just fine without them, even though I would have qualified for them.
Now, as opposed to those blood sucking leaches being created by the vote buying demorat propagandists, what this man displays is the [glow=blue,2,300]True American Spirit, [/glow] a quality that's within & can't be bought. ---------- It's called [glow=black,2,300]Character[/glow].
His obvious Character will define him when he approaches a prospective employer, offering these employers true value & worth in exchange for a job. It is Character like his that employers are looking for. A value that they so desire.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)I tip my hat to Dawg, & the hundreds - upon hundreds of thousands like him, for having the American Pride & Character to tough it out & survive, rather than taking the easy way out by selling their values for an easy take.
[glow=blue,2,300]America needs more men like you! [/glow]
Thank you Dawg, for re-igniting my Pride in The True American Spirit! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
Thank ya Sir! I do appreciate it! :cheers: :beer:
The Croc-Pot is truly one of the more brilliant inventions ever made. One can make many meals from them.
One thing I learned throughout college is frugality. I have not understood why ppl pay for satellite (in recent years), as I get by just fine with Netfilx ( $8.55 a month), Hulu Plus ( $7.99 a month) and Amazon Instant Video (pay $99 for the whole she-bango and get it for a year, along with free shipping on certain items and a free book every month to borrow!).
But SanguineMoon does a a point I think you should consider; a relative of mine is in terrible shape. She has a hereditary back disease that has stripped her ability to do consistent work/stand for long periods of time. As such, she is no longer able to work, and must rely on her husband. Her husband is just a general laborer, and does work under the table.
She and he have reached a point of absolute emergency. He can barely afford half of her medication, can barely afford gas for his truck, and they rely on meals in the instances you mention (local Baptist church in their town, mainly, although to @Belfrager's church's credit, a Catholic Church also has pitched into help. ), but they are one of many ppl doing so in that poverty-stricken Delta town. As such, their rations are barely enough for more than 3 days.
The question she now faces is what is more important? Deal with going hungry or paying for her meds?
I have encouraged her to try for food stamps **, as they are exactly for the instance I have just illustrated. If she did so, she could focus on paying for ALL of her meds, and possibly saving up cash for a surgery for her debilitating disease.
**= Not sure she will get them, as she also worked "under the table" (for @Josh that means working for someone who does not take taxes out).
But, regardless, I do try to help when I can. It's quite the sad situation. :(
But SanguineMoon does a a point I think you should consider; a relative of mine is in terrible shape. She has a hereditary back disease that has stripped her ability to do consistent work/stand for long periods of time. As such, she is no longer able to work, and must rely on her husband. Her husband is just a general laborer, and does work under the table.
She and he have reached a point of absolute emergency. He can barely afford half of her medication, can barely afford gas for his truck, and they rely on meals in the instances you mention (local Baptist church in their town, mainly, although to @Belfrager's church's credit, a Catholic Church also has pitched into help. ), but they are one of many ppl doing so in that poverty-stricken Delta town. As such, their rations are barely enough for more than 3 days.
The question she now faces is what is more important? Deal with going hungry or paying for her meds?
I have encouraged her to try for food stamps **, as they are exactly for the instance I have just illustrated. If she did so, she could focus on paying for ALL of her meds, and possibly saving up cash for a surgery for her debilitating disease.
While your relatives' problem is compelling, I've read 'Coonys post more than a couple of times, & respectfully I see no point he attempts to make that relates specifically to the type of problem you posted.
That said, just because I don't believe in the Food Stamp Program -- that the Federal Government so loosely implements -- won't make it go away any time soon, & if that is the only way that your relatives can survive is taking advantage of this program, then that's what they should do until they can find a privately funded alternative.
The day that the present Food Stamp Program is abolished, & replaced with a program that is specifically for those in your relatives situation -- need based, & not for the general public solely based on income levels -- I'd look at such a program as much more favorable.
In principal, could you support something like that? Needs based, as opposed to a fraud riddled, solely means tested -- income based?
BTW .... This is actually off topic, for it has nothing to do with the justification of Wealth Redistribution.
Nick, en mass, such people's survival generally harms our same species.
One thing I learned throughout college is frugality. I have not understood why ppl pay for satellite (in recent years), as I get by just fine with Netfilx ( $8.55 a month), Hulu Plus ( $7.99 a month) and Amazon Instant Video (pay $99 for the whole she-bango and get it for a year, along with free shipping on certain items and a free book every month to borrow!).
Because satellite is cheaper than 8.55+7.99/month? :P (Or do you not have any FTA channels in America?)
Over here you can receive the large majority of German and English channels for free, a few Dutch ones, a sizable number of French ones and a whole bunch in other languages I don't speak (Polish, Italian, Algerian, Turkish, Egyptian, Spanish, etc.). Basically you'd be paying a little for the remaining Dutch channels, if you want them.
Over here you can receive the large majority of German channels.
Great news!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m02y8x1vxk1r37tz2o1_400.gif&hash=37a257cec0145430594f7cb8965fe094" rel="cached" data-hash="37a257cec0145430594f7cb8965fe094" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m02y8x1vxk1r37tz2o1_400.gif)
Great news!
The German channels from the 1930s? Wait, in what star system am I? :insane:
Nick, en mass, such people's survival generally harms our same species.
Pray tell which ppl you are talking about specifically?
Great news!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi221.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd243%2FSgt_Nuthead%2Ffarnsworth.jpg&hash=79e9b932ebdd78429757fb5f5091cd3e" rel="cached" data-hash="79e9b932ebdd78429757fb5f5091cd3e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd243/Sgt_Nuthead/farnsworth.jpg)
Nick, en mass, such people's survival generally harms our same species.
Pray tell which ppl you are talking about specifically?
Socialdarwinists :right:
survival != reproduction
I don't think social "Darwinists" care about survival. :right:
survival != reproduction
What did you mean by that?
Some factorial? ???
survival != reproduction
What did you mean by that?
Some factorial? ???
!= is used when ≠ is too much for the keyboard.. it means "is not the same as"
While I appreciate Mac answering for Josh, I would like for Josh to man up and actually answer a question for once, on here.
Once again; who are you talking about? If it is my relative that I mentioned in response to SF, we will most likely have problems.
If it is whom Mac suggests, carry on.
Also, do consider answering my question I posted in another thread about your UK fascination, please.
While I appreciate Mac answering for Josh, I would like for Josh to man up and actually answer a question for once, on here.
Once again; who are you talking about? If it is my relative that I mentioned in response to SF, we will most likely have problems.
If it is whom Mac suggests, carry on.
It looks like you're not familiar with Josh's point of view on this subject. He already explained everything on My Opera.
Mac just provided scientific name for Josh's point of view.
While I appreciate Mac answering for Josh, I would like for Josh to man up and actually answer a question for once, on here.
Once again; who are you talking about? If it is my relative that I mentioned in response to SF, we will most likely have problems.
If it is whom Mac suggests, carry on.
It looks like you're not familiar with Josh's point of view on this subject. He already explained everything on My Opera.
Mac just provided scientific name for Josh's point of view.
You are correct that I am not aware of Josh's POV, as Josh came along onto MyOpera at about the same time I took a vacation from it, owing to real life stuff, and other more pressing issues, along with deep dissatisfaction with Opera in general, owing to their ass-hattery that I saw coming from a mile away.
Regardless, I do look forward to Josh's answer for clarification.
Science says that even rats show compassion and share their wealth. Not all people are able to do the same.
Study: Rats aren't selfish, but show compassion (http://news.yahoo.com/study-rats-arent-selfish-show-compassion-192515801.html)
... rats can be compassionate. They freed another trapped rat in their cage, even when yummy chocolate served as a tempting distraction. Twenty-three of the 30 rats in the study opened the cage. The rats could have hogged all the chocolate before freeing their partners, but often didn't, choosing to first help, then share.
It's called social behaviour.
It's called social behaviour.
Search for social darwinism in Wikipedia.
I don't need to.
This is a point of view - but it's not a party, clique, or something, like a Mason lodge:D It is rather a theory: there are theories - and some of them are wrong. This one based on pure science - as I get it without any look-up.
MAYBE the scientific models on which it's based are incorrect - maybe. But so far I can only observe positive practical evidence.
This one based on pure science - as I get it without any look-up.
Pure science? OMG!
Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.
Should I care?
Science says that even rats show compassion and share their wealth. Not all people are able to do the same.
Any animal shows compassion. Regarding "their own".
The key for a discussion about redistribution is Social Darwinism, selfishness, consumerism and absence of Catholic values.
People against redistribution are like rats, they want to redistribute to rats not for cats.
To date, I have yet to hear from anyone that can show a legitimate justification in the taking away of, without permission (to steal **), what someone has worked for -- their income, & to simplify the process, to redistribute that income to others, others who did nothing of value to earn that income, simply because these others happen to be of a lower income level in society.
That's the process in question here.
We're not talking about the destitute, or the truly needy. There is no quibble over societies need to ask for voluntarily contributions to offer a hand for helping those destitute & truly needy out of the pit they're unfortunately in.
We should focus on those in society that do have, but just not as much as others. Taking wealth involuntarily from those that have earned wealth, to redistribute that wealth to people who have not earned it (those in society that do have, but just not as much as others), is the process I have outlined as needing justification.
Will no one address this issue -- can you support the present day distribution processes -- without resorting to the demonisation of the 'rich', or passing back-handed negative connotation toward successful higher income earners in today's society?
We may as a society think it's nice, or even sometimes appropriate, to support those of lesser means (even though they can make do without it), but does that legitimately justify government to steal ** the earned income of another in societies behalf, for redistribution to those not destitute or truly in need?
** Verb: to steal
To take without the owner's consent
Kind of selfish touch there I am afraid. That word on helping the needy whether they need it or not is stretching things. Of recent years the trends has been for the gap to get wider and a couple of decades ago the times you would multiply the average wage to that of a top executive has been vastly widened. However not in favour of those less well off. That cannot be anything more than a reality of practical fact. In your country the top pays less a percentage in tax and in mine the top earners pay 25% of taxes and I think that is right. To simply say with ease somehow by a wave of a wand the rich could hep out the poor is pushing your luck. Throw in 40 million poor and increasing loss of homes and you have an increasing social problem.
If society as a whole is simply going to be a case of "pity you are poor" and hope a few rich people might throw in something into the pot is very flawed. In my mind it is not a very constructive idea of society at all.
But SanguineMoon does a a point I think you should consider; a relative of mine is in terrible shape. She has a hereditary back disease that has stripped her ability to do consistent work/stand for long periods of time. As such, she is no longer able to work, and must rely on her husband. Her husband is just a general laborer, and does work under the table.
She and he have reached a point of absolute emergency. He can barely afford half of her medication, can barely afford gas for his truck, and they rely on meals in the instances you mention (local Baptist church in their town, mainly, although to @Belfrager's church's credit, a Catholic Church also has pitched into help. ), but they are one of many ppl doing so in that poverty-stricken Delta town. As such, their rations are barely enough for more than 3 days.
The question she now faces is what is more important? Deal with going hungry or paying for her meds?
I have encouraged her to try for food stamps **, as they are exactly for the instance I have just illustrated. If she did so, she could focus on paying for ALL of her meds, and possibly saving up cash for a surgery for her debilitating disease.
While your relatives' problem is compelling, I've read 'Coonys post more than a couple of times, & respectfully I see no point he attempts to make that relates specifically to the type of problem you posted.
That said, just because I don't believe in the Food Stamp Program -- that the Federal Government so loosely implements -- won't make it go away any time soon, & if that is the only way that your relatives can survive is taking advantage of this program, then that's what they should do until they can find a privately funded alternative.
The day that the present Food Stamp Program is abolished, & replaced with a program that is specifically for those in your relatives situation -- need based, & not for the general public solely based on income levels -- I'd look at such a program as much more favorable.
In principal, could you support something like that? Needs based, as opposed to a fraud riddled, solely means tested -- income based?
BTW .... This is actually off topic, for it has nothing to do with the justification of Wealth Redistribution.
Addressing stuff from bottom to top:
1. But it is wealth redistribution. The Food Stamps program takes our tax dollars and loads them onto an EBT card for those deemed to qualify for said program.
2. Yes, absolutely I could support a needs-based program. Please do remember that I basically live in the "3rd World" state of the US, which has the highest poverty level, and that many are dirt poor. As such, few privately-funded programs exist, and those that do are stretched to their breaking point with requests.
3. Well, you and he do have quite the history. :P
1. But it is wealth redistribution. The Food Stamps program takes our tax dollars and loads them onto an EBT card for those deemed to qualify for said program.
But, is that legitimate justification for taking wealth & redistributing it to those that
'can' see clear to make do without....read here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=235.msg14866#msg14866)
Qualification by ever changing political motivations does not, IMHO, justify that.
Do you think otherwise?
1. But it is wealth redistribution. The Food Stamps program takes our tax dollars and loads them onto an EBT card for those deemed to qualify for said program.
But, is that legitimate justification for taking wealth & redistributing it to those that 'can' see clear to make do without....read here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=235.msg14866#msg14866)
Qualification by ever changing political motivations does not, IMHO, justify that.
Do you think otherwise?
I think that any "needs-based" scheme would spawn a huge bureaucracy on needs-assessors, slavering to rip off the system
I think that any "needs-based" scheme would spawn a huge bureaucracy on needs-assessors, slavering to rip off the system
Exactly.
That's why if they are to exist at all, any program/process needs to be administered by qualified/regulated charities, & by all means kept out of the inept, ultra-political hands of
'here today - gone tomorrow' bureaucratic government officials.
In your country the top pays less a percentage in tax and in mine the top earners pay 25% of taxes and I think that is right.
Geeez, they get off very cheap there rj ......
do your homework son, do your homework for here's the [glow=green,2,300]
Federal Income Tax[/glow] rates:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDuph7aG.jpg&hash=742955505dc2e3e734a7a588e308d3dc" rel="cached" data-hash="742955505dc2e3e734a7a588e308d3dc" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/Duph7aG.jpg)
Source (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx)
Those here at the top income brackets would (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/dancetd3.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yahoo.gif) dance silly (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/Dance03.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/dance2fz9.gif) if the top rate were
only 25%!!!BTW ..... that top rate of
39.6% doesn't include [glow=green,2,300]
State Income Tax,[/glow] [glow=green,2,300]
Local Income Taxes,[/glow]
& [glow=green,2,300]
Sales Tax.....etc.....etc...etc[/glow]
That effectively pushes the top tax rate
way in excess of your picayune
25% top rate.
Now you're just being disingenuous. The wealthy typically get most of their income from capital gains taxed at 15-20%, as you damn well know. Teabaggers insist on telling obvious falsehoods, but why? If you make the more than USD 406,751 and pay anywhere near 39.6%, fire your accountant. In their unfortunate brain damage, it the 'baggers forget that Buffer noted the he actually paid less percentage tax than his secretary?
The Federal Income tax rates I provided above are 100% correct.
The effective rates of tax one ends up paying varies upon the mountains of tax code & how they are applied to one's individual tax return.
Now, how the tax laws are written, & how deductions are applied based on those laws, the end rate of tax paid can vary.
Unless you're naive enough to believe that those Federal Tax Rates are 'flat tax' rates, you would know as we all do that the end rate you actually pay is dependent upon your deductions.
This is common knowledge known world wide, so your boogy-man tax rant is nothing more than a charade on your part in a vain attempt to discredit, which won't work -- & nobody is stupid enough to take you seriously. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyjungle.com%2Fsmilies%2Fdisdain25.gif&hash=44a8ca0ad3a8a78afe769a15d30d1c2e" rel="cached" data-hash="44a8ca0ad3a8a78afe769a15d30d1c2e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/disdain25.gif) (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyjungle.com%2Fsmilies%2Fdisdain21.gif&hash=b8d6853f8d5bfd21285c2d77b88e932a" rel="cached" data-hash="b8d6853f8d5bfd21285c2d77b88e932a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/disdain21.gif)
Last year President Obama made $608,611. He paid $112,214 in Federal Income tax. He is in the 39.6% tax bracket, but because of his numerous legal deductions his Federal Tax Rate was effectively lowered to 18.4%.
Now, not knowing if he had any State, or Local Income Tax, Capitol Gains Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, etc,,etc,,etc to add to that Federal Tax, I would have to believe his end overall tax paid was higher than that 18.4% figure.
Now, are you going to address this issue -- can you support the present day redistribution processes -- without resorting to the demonisation of the 'rich', or passing back-handed negative connotation toward successful higher income earners in today's society?
So, are you going to continue throwing up bogus class-envy smokescreens, or are you going to legitimately attempt to justify taking wealth involuntarily from those that have earned wealth, to redistribute that wealth to people who have not earned it, are not truly needy, & are far from being destitute?
The way Smiley put the topic of this thread just recently, I suppose that the issue with ill people might be a topic for another thread, which is maybe yet to come - or not...
The Federal Income tax rates I provided above are 100% correct.
The effective rates of tax one ends up paying varies upon the mountains of tax code & how they are applied to one's individual tax return.
Now, how the tax laws are written, & how deductions are applied based on those laws, the end rate of tax paid can vary.
Unless you're naive enough to believe that those Federal Tax Rates are 'flat tax' rates, you would know as we all do that the end rate you actually pay is dependent upon your deductions.
This is common knowledge known world wide, so your boogy-man tax rant is nothing more than a charade on your part in a vain attempt to discredit, which won't work -- & nobody is stupid enough to take you seriously. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyjungle.com%2Fsmilies%2Fdisdain25.gif&hash=44a8ca0ad3a8a78afe769a15d30d1c2e" rel="cached" data-hash="44a8ca0ad3a8a78afe769a15d30d1c2e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/disdain25.gif) (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyjungle.com%2Fsmilies%2Fdisdain21.gif&hash=b8d6853f8d5bfd21285c2d77b88e932a" rel="cached" data-hash="b8d6853f8d5bfd21285c2d77b88e932a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/disdain21.gif)
Last year President Obama made $608,611. He paid $112,214 in Federal Income tax. He is in the 39.6% tax bracket, but because of his numerous legal deductions his Federal Tax Rate was effectively lowered to 18.4%.
Now, not knowing if he had any State, or Local Income Tax, Capitol Gains Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, etc,,etc,,etc to add to that Federal Tax, I would have to believe his end overall tax paid was higher than that 18.4% figure.
Now, are you going to address this issue -- can you support the present day redistribution processes -- without resorting to the demonisation of the 'rich', or passing back-handed negative connotation toward successful higher income earners in today's society?
So, are you going to continue throwing up bogus class-envy smokescreens, or are you going to legitimately attempt to justify taking wealth involuntarily from those that have earned wealth, to redistribute that wealth to people who have not earned it, are not truly needy, & are far from being destitute?
However, other capital gains are taxed at 15-20% from the get go, not the result of deductions. You are correct in that the relatively low Federal taxes that a top earners pay can be more than halved from deductions, but that's not the whole story. The whole story likely would be 1,000 page tome :p
Actually, you don't have to take from me. Take it from the IRS itself.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Important-Facts-About-Capital-Gains-and-Losses
The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.
Now why is that? Because you report them on your 1040 as capital gains and the tax rate is computed as such.
It seems fair enough to tax it less on account of inflation. That is, if one bought a house for 20k in 1950 and sold it now for 200k, it'd be a huge rip-off to tax a 180k profit. Also, I don't know how it is in the States, but here you have to pay transfer tax so taxing that as a profit would be double taxation to boot.
However, what I don't understand is these American qualified dividends. What's the (supposed) difference with regular dividends?
The wealthiest man in the world receives an award for being the wealthiest man in the world.
Emmanuel Macron a remis mercredi 13 mars au soir la grand-croix de la Légion d’honneur au PDG du géant français du luxe LVMH, Bernard Arnault. [...] Aux manettes du leader mondial du luxe, M. Arnault est aujourd’hui l’homme le plus riche du monde, avec un patrimoine estimé à 230 milliards de dollars, devant Elon Musk et ses 210 milliards de dollars, selon le classement Forbes. Bernard Arnault qui est entré dernièrement en négociations exclusives avec le groupe Lagardère, passé en novembre 2023 dans le giron de Vincent Bolloré, pour racheter l’hebdomadaire Paris Match.