Redistribution of Wealth

your investments will be taxed regardless of where they located...just ask my boy helio

 

by no means do I claim to know alot about the economy but where things so bad at clinton tax levels? I mean is 39% that bad? Most rich people I know have cpas that move their money into tax shelters and what not so that dont get hit that hard anyway.

 

Right now, in America, the more money you make the higher the rate of income tax you pay is. It has been that way for a long time. Has it always been un-American? Has it always caused bad things for our economy?

In recent news, this issue came up because one of the presidential candidates wants to adjust the tax rates back to where they were in the 90s. Was the economy doing poorly back then?

The point I am making is that there is a long spectrum that can be referred to as redistribution of wealth, and depending on where along that spectrum a particular policy lies one might change how they feel about the appropriateness or effectiveness.

I personally agree that complete redistribution of wealth is not a good thing, but I don't see much of a problem with the current state and I won't be all that bent out of shape if things return to how they were 15 years ago.

 

oh and to comment on the heart of this topic...I think it is very dangerous to allow an incredible discrepancy between the haves and the have nots...It is not that I am against individuals becoming ridiculously rich...the problem is that the middle class demographic is beginning to diminish in volume. If you look back throughout history, a diminishing or non-existent middle class has been at the heart of larger problems.

 

first of all there aren't other countries where you can go where the tax rate is low enough to justify the losses you'll suffer from not having the same type of infrastructure, access to capital/people etc.

secondly, who is robbing the less fortunate? no one is for 60% tax brackets. the difference is between 33/35% and 39%. the difference is between having these artificially low cap gains or having the cap gains closer to income tax levels.

thirdly, it is the price you pay for living in a civilized society. you help others. you live in a democracy which necessarily will favor those in the middle class.

but mostly, you're rich because you have the great services this country provided. you wouldn't be rich if we didn't build your airports, roads or schools. your banks wouldn't work if the government of the united states wasn't going to bail them out, if it didn't regulate them thru the sec, if it didn't ensure them thru the fdic.

as buffets saying goes...if he was in bangladesh he wouldn't be able to use his investment skills to the same level. the rich are rich in large part because they lived in a society which rewards their skills. and thus they should be taxed appropriately in order to sustain those services that the society provides.

 

Those who are on top have never been anywhere close to the very bottom, and those who are on the very bottom are probably going to stay there for their entire lives.

The American Dream may have had some substance in the past, but it doesn't any longer.

If that is what our whole country is based on, then our whole country is based on bull****.

 

I currently do not make more then 250k a year. even if taxes got hicked up to a crazy 45% for people makeing 250k I still am going to work my but off to make it to that tax barcket becauses Its better then making sub 100k, When you have debt to pay off and a baby on the way.

 

exactly...i really get irritated by how short-sided and selfish some americans are

 

I may just be repeating what others said, but here's my take:

Any person who prospers in this country owes some debt to all the men/woman, past and present and future, who's work or potential work is allowing that person to make something of his life. Without that support, there wouldn't be an "American Dream".

You couldn't do what you do without workers who build the roads, or without the customers that pay directly or indirectly your paycheck, or the teachers who educated you. I think we tend to lose sight of this interdependence. So, if someone is prospering, yes they may be doing so in part because of their hard work. But they also owe something to America itself, this land of opportunity. And that isn't just some abstract concept. America is what it is because its citizens (and, yes, even some non-citizens) help make it so. Taxation is a way to ensure that the structure which allows the "American Dream" to be possible doesn't implode.

Taxation isn't the government punishing your success. It's America asking for her fee.

 

that is a sweeping generalization and an untrue one

spoken like a true quitter that is what has killed the american dream.

the most disgusting thing is how those who have worked hard and become "rich" (a conveniently vague word with a negative connotation) are made out to be villians.

 

I don't understand. Isn't the current plan to revert the tax rate to what it was 10-15 years ago when the American economy was doing fine? It's not like the proposal is to somehow tax the rich substantially more than they've ever been taxed before.

I know a lot of people making under $250,000. (In fact, I can't think of anybody I know well that doesn't.) A large majority of these people manage their income, save money and live within their means. The tax increase for those making over $250,000 is intended to help them - the middle class.

Sure, some of the programs that are paid for with the taxes of the rich do help the poor. But most of your higher taxes go to other things like national defense.

I'll be honest, I don't have the same apparent emotional outrage to this as your post indicates you might. I don't mind that I pay higher taxes because through managing my income, saving money and living within my means I can afford it, and I don't mind giving up that money to make the country better. I hope that the people we've elected do their best to make sure the money is used for people and programs that deserve it, and I understand that it doesn't always happen that way, but I'd rather try than just keep the money for myself.

 

What makes the current rates ideal? Are you suggesting that the levels we're at are the perfect balance between what the high end and lower ends should pay? We got to the current system by constant tweaking and random chance. What would make it perfect? If it's not, who's to say raising or lowering the top rate by 3% is inherently unfair?

 

I don't have a problem w/ the majority vote to increase everyone's tax by 10%.

10% 0f 0 is still 0.

Something is awefully wrong when you can get a majority to vote to increase tax the other people (not themselves).

Helping people is great and I'm all for it. Educate them.

Giving hand outs is not it.

Do you know who is the highest taxed worker?

The guy paying 0 in tax and want to earn a better living. Every dollar he makes above the $0 tax threshhold gets taxed 40-50% and his benefits get cut dramatically.

 

Cheezeman, if you don't mind my asking... what kind of income range are you in? It affects how I would respond to your thread.

 

I didn't kill it, but it's still dead.

Article reprinted from BusinessWeek Dec. 2003

A scholarly report on social mobility in the United States (PDF)

I'd urge you to read the reports from the above site, but I've found that the staunch free-marketeers cling to their faith just as strongly as any other fundamentalist does - it's not about truth, it's about belief.

The most insidious thing about all of this is, of course, the suggestion that rich people got where they are because they were smart and worked hard, while poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. Few people will say it outright, but that's always the implication of most arguments supporting your position.

 

And here it is. Blame the poor for being poor. The young man who has to work to help his family survive and can't afford (financially or time wise) to go college, blame him for not furthering his education.

You know, sometimes poor people aren't poor because they don't work hard or because the mismanage their money. Sometimes it's cyclical and they're always stuck between a rock and a hard place.

My mother worked to put my father through college. When they divorced, she was forced to seek employment without having a college degree and when I was young, she was barely making $22K. She was 37 and I was 2. She couldn't go back to college with no income and an infant to take care of. So is it her fault that she doesn't have a college degree or was she just a victim of circumstance?

The are the poor who work very hard but are victims of circumstance. There are the rich who haven't done a damned thing in their lives and benefit from their rich parents and their friends (cronyism). Income is not a good measure of somebody's work ethic, intelligence, talent, and money management skills.

 

The progressive tax rates have always fluctuated. None have been so dramatic to imply these drastic changes in human behavior.