OT: Wealth Redistribution Experiment

[cr]

Wow, a lot quoting going on. Also a lot of socialist talk from what I thought were level-headed piggs.

Here’s a thought. The Government collects nearly $3 Trillion in taxes each year, and yet they fail to make that profitable.

That’s pathetic, and raising taxes is a cop out of doing what needs to be done.

When a business becomes unprofitable it can’t simply raise costs arbitrarily without losing business. They have to cut costs.

How about a smaller, more efficient Government that can actually balance a budget WITHOUT raising taxes?

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.

It’s a self-destructive cycle that will only end with a smaller Government that can actually balance a budget.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[CA renter]

It doesn’t matter who ends up paying higher taxes, the NET effect will be negative: bigger Government, more welfare/socialism, more unemployment, less consumption, lower quality of life and so on.
———————

Sounds an awful lot like what we got from our Fearless Leader — “free market and lower taxes for the rich” — Republican President Bush.

I’ll take the Democratic version…at least we can have healthcare instead of war, jobs (even if they are govt jobs) instead of house flipping, and labor over capital (one can hope).

Bring it on.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[34f3f3f]

Raising taxes doesn’t mean quite the same thing as redistribution of wealth, at least in the sense that some socialists or Marxists refer to it. Obama’s plan is the redistribution of taxes, and Republicans are very clearly distorting it for political leverage. Raising taxes is just that, and is used for a host of causes. Redistribution of wealth is more wholesale, and involves nationalizing industries, compulsory acquisitions, and sometimes heavily taxing inherited wealth. If raising taxes means redistributing wealth, then it follows that lowering taxes concentrates wealth, which clearly makes no sense either.

However, I would agree that in the current crisis it is probably not the best time to be talking about raising taxes, but in the long term I don’t see how the huge US deficits are going to be paid for.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[an]

Linky

Under their last tax proposal, if your family make more than $66k/yr, on average, you’ll get more $ back from McCain’s plan.

[Author]

Posts