Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


I think I explained myself quite well in previous and subsequent posts thank you very much... when the poster seems incapable of a meaningful dialogue since their opinions are carved in stone what else can you call it?

Odd how it took the poster of this thread 32 (I counted them) responses before he finally admitted that he had plagerized it from another source on the web....

I thought there where a whole slew of new ATSNN guidelines to prevent this and if you don't bracket a post with quotes and a source you can be warned or banned.

reply to post by grover


This is not ATSNN. The OP has been put into external quote tags. Points have been deducted from the post opener. And Obama will most probably become President.

That should give you a Quantum of Solace.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Since I hadn't gone back to the main page other than to count... I am glad to see that he as apologized.

As for Obama winning, he will of that I am sure but as I have said repeatedly I am not a huge fan and had hoped for someone else to get the nomination like Bill Richardson... but since he is the nominee I support him and more importantly stand up and object to the many egregious smears and misinformation that has been posted about him.

I wish him well as president.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't think it's over yet Skyfloating.

McCain can still win this. A lot hinges on voter turnout and what could still happen over the weekend. I still haven't resigned myself to accepting an Obama presidency.

Have you know understanding of the term wealth? A restaurant waiter is not wealthy and is lucky if she is working poor! Heck, rich people are not wealthy either. There is a huge difference my friend. Some wealthy people would be Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Oil Company Executives, International Banking families etc, etc.

Your redistribution of wealth test is inaccurate because you failed to redidtribute WEALTH. You redistributed earnings from the sweat of one's brow which flawed your test.

Pick an Banking Executive who just received 700b in welfare and ask him to build a homeless shelter for the homeless or take $30 from the 700b and give it to the waiter as a Tip. That is redistribution of wealth. Try Again!

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I'm sorry but your wrong.

Wealth is relative my friend.

$700 to one man could be the same as $700 million to another. It's all relative.

Trust me, I consider a lot less than 700 anything to be wealth.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And Obama will most probably become President.

What a downer!



Seriously though, it's not over yet.

Here's another one of the wonderful internet analogies that fuel arguments. Chew on this one.

Father-Daughter Talk


"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other
liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.


She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated
in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the
rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn´t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn´t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ´How is your friend Audrey doing?´ She replied, ´Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She´s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn´t even show up for classes because she´s too hung over.´

Her wise father asked his daughter, ´Why don´t you go to the Dean´s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.´

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father´s suggestion, angrily fired back,
´That´s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I´ve worked really hard for my grades! I´ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!´

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
´Welcome to the Republican Party.´"

reply to post by educatedfool


An interesting analogy to be sure.

I'm sure you'll get arguments that the specifics are off and that isn't how it works, but the overall theme is the same. Redistribution of anything is nothing more than taking away something a person has worked for, and giving it to someone else who has not.

I'm all for helping people, but this isn't the way to do it.

Sorry midnight, but that is NOT how tipping is supposed to go. Sad to have to explain this to an adult, but tipping is like a sliding scale. 15% is average, so thats where you start for "average" service. If they give better than usual service, you can give more, perhaps 20% or so. If they do not as well, you give not as good a tip, like 10% or so. Thats how its supposed to work and your refusal to see this is highly indicative that you are just one of those people who is willing to interperet the rules in ways that best serve you, even at the expense of others.

And before you say that all people do that, there was a native american author interviewed on the daily show monday night. When asked why the majority of native tribesmen were supporting Obama when Mccain had done well for them, the author answered that unlike other peoples, the native americans choose what is best for EVERYONE in the world, rather than just what is best for their tribe.

But then your post is filled with your obvious contempt for the average fellow man, and your apparent lack of spirituality. That you are unable to grasp that our country is in the midst of a spiritual and mental health dilema demonstrates either that you have no contact with or knowledge of the massive amounts of people filling our psyche wards or living with alcoholism and addiction, or that you are completely lacking in insight or just dont care. All one has to do is look around with an open heart and a listening ear to see that something here is severely wrong with the psyche of america. When the righteousness of war is debated on the right by wether we can win or not, and on the left by wether we can afford it or not, but no one mentioning that its WRONG to kill, that shows a serious problem. When large masses of money are given from the taxpayers to the wealthy and theres no outcry, but start giving something back to the poor instead and people get outraged, THATS a problem. When many americans can look at the poor on the corners, or those in the projects, or yes, even those very bums that they complain about being lazy leeches to the system, and forget to see the god that burns within their souls too, Forget that they, just like you, want to feel love and be useful to the people around them, then yes, something is wrong.
Understand this, it is a part of HUMAN NATURE to need to be useful, to need to learn and grow, and to need to share with other people. Its part of maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the most beautiful part. The problem is that that part is only allowed to grow when the lower basic necessities have not only been taken care of, but are secured for the future as well. Giving the poor that support, allowing welfare to handle those basic needs, and letting them work towards extra until they are a level of GROWTH, NOT SUBSISTENCE, would provide them an environment where they could once again start working through that hierarchy of needs. This is not socialism, its basic psychology. Furthermore, its the only humane way to treat your brothers and sisters, that you seem to hold so much derision and disdain for.
I work in the psyche ward, and i see the transition these people go through and i hear the stories of how it happens. So i see them when they come in as children, and i see them dieing inside over time....so yes, when i see a homeless person on the side of the road, when i see an alcoholic begging for change, when i see a drug addict in the gutter coming down, i also see the child they were full of potential and yearning and hope for love, that has been beaten down. Yes, all societies have this, but why is it so much more prevalent here in this wonderful "land of the free and home of the brave"?? Perhaps its due to the fact that in other countries they get the care and security they need to fight their way out of it.

As to sharing your home with a child from denmark and china....well, that makes you about as much an expert i suppose as any french family or saudi family would be if they shared a home with an american child.... keeping in mind that our children know almost nothing about our history, have no idea about politics and how our system truly works, and often now have great difficulties even with basic spelling and math. I had a couple foster children from Saudi actually, and the most i ever learned about their country from them was that the men beat the women, children dont get spanked....oh, and a good bit about food and toys and stuff. They really had no idea about their political system, or how people were taken care of by their government, or anything like that, and these were educated children who each spoke multiple languages.

Its not even that the specifics are off or that its not how it works. Thats not how its done in any socialist society to date, and in the western european socialist democracies, the people there, rich and poor, dont complain about the systems they have and indeed most people support them strongly. The whole point of society is all the people of that society working together so they may all do better, all societies ARE collectives, thats the whole reason they are inacted. The complaints of those railing against socialist institutions have rarely been borne out in any land that incorporates these humane ideologies. Giving the poor a lifting hand has regularly been shown to help different nations, while giving money to the rich has only historically benefited the rich.

I'm not going to read through 13 pages of argument, but I'll just repost what I posted on MySpace when I read this email.

-----

The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the patron of the restaurant was never required to tip. Also, the waiter in the restaurant hadn't been receiving extremely unfair tax breaks for the last 8 years. The waiter had not been shipping his duties overseas and letting people preform his job for a cheaper wage while he sat back, not having to work as hard - and putting his co-worker out of work, and earned even more wages (disregarding his tips). Oh, yeah. Also congress didn't pass laws in his favor that allow the waiter to monopolize his service, putting his other serving competition out of business, thus allowing him to rake in money hand over fist because Average Joe could no longer compete with a server who could afford to buy out all the tables in the restaurant.


People, before you fall for all this political bullSNIP rhetoric, put it into perspective and think REALISTICALLY!

Redistribution of wealth isn't about earning $20k/year. It isn't about earning $250k/year. It's about big corporations that have been allowed (by congress) to monopolize their business practices and put the smaller guy out of business. It's about Congress passing trade agreements that benefit these major corporations, allowing them to make even more money and ship your job over seas so they can pay someone $2/hr for a job you used to get paid $18/hour for. It's about the major corporations getting MAJOR tax breaks, while the burden has been placed on the middle and lower classes for years. Oh, speaking of burden ... how about the $700 Billion Bailout? Who's gonna foot the bill for that? You think it's going to be the corporations that are already sheltered by all the tax breaks paying for it? SNIP NO, it won't. It'll be Average Joe.

So, tell me: Is redistribution of wealth fair? Hell yes it is.

You can take your $10 and give it to the homeless guy Mr. "Unscientific Experiment" because it'll be the restaurant server that's going to be getting the breaks in an Obama administration. Not Mr. (CEO) "Unscientific Experiment". So, maybe Mr. Unscientific Experiment ought to save that $10 for himself .... as if he wasn't going to anyway.

-----

Consiidering the bottom 40 % of the population pay no Federal Income Tax i think we have enough redistrubution of wealth how about something more practical limited goverment limited Political Years (hear that Bloomberg?)
More power to state goverments and less for Washington DC.

reply to post by torresm1


Hey, I'm all for more state rights and less government interference.



We need smaller government, not bigger government. Unfortunately both parties are guilty of increasing government now.

The fact that the bottom 40% doesnt pay income tax doesnt mean they are taken care of. They are taxed, in the form of artificial leveraging of workers wages since the 70's to keep their pay down. Lobbyists have worked over the last 4 decades to keep wages low while production (money production now, not manufacturing) has doubled...if thats not taxation levied by the rich, i dont know what is...but its taxation we have no say in, and its taxation that goes not to social projects or wellbeing, but to the banks of the corporate powers.
As GDP has doubled since the 70's the average persons purchasing power has remained the same (though its actually dropping now) and the income gap has grown drastically. This sounds like non legislated taxation to me, as much of this is the result of wealthy industries using lobbyists (money to buy votes) in order to enact legislation that allows them to keep our wages low, and to outsource valuable and good paying jobs to other countries. Obviously not in the best interest of the american people but then, when has business ever put the collective good first and foremost over their own greed. Im not talking about desire for profit here, im talking about greed, profit at anothers expense, and there IS a difference.

As to smaller government.... what we have in our country are massive powerful corporations taking part in the legislation of our laws, thats what the whole lobbyist industry is about. If you want to talk about government, you cant do that without including these massive hundred billion dollar industries. In order to cut the size of government, we could start by cutting corporate power from our elected processes. I believe it was mussolini that said "fascism is when corporations combine with government."

reply to post by nyk537


This thread totally made my day.
Thank you very much sir!

Just as my two cents as so many others have tried to pretend that redistribution of weath isn't the same as this OP's example.

The bottom 40% not only do not pay taxes, but they get the SAME services that everyone else gets (good or bad) they do not pay for any of that, they get it free. So they are already getting something for nothing.

On top of that "Refundable Tax Credits" means money from one guy going to another which is by definition "REDISTRIBUTION".

It doesn't matter if you feel corporations are raping the poor or the government is holding them down, shipping out jobs or whatever other reason you come up with.. deal with those problems the right way..

The right way ISN'T by taking money from John and giving it to Raul.
The right way is getting the government to function properly and getting rid of the things you believe are causing the system to fail.


on a side note..
$250,000 isn't a lot of money. Not if you have a home, two college age children and you live in the north east. It's even less if you get that from "profit" of your own business, when 250K turns into 50k really fast.

When exactly did having a decent home, sending your kids to a decent college become ripping off the poor?

Do you know why can't Obama start at 1 mil isntead of 250K?

Because there just aren't that many rich people to take from..that's why. And when his final "programs for everyone but the MC" bill gets totaled, that 250,000 line will be moved ever downward.

don't take my word..do the math yourself,

[edit on 30-10-2008 by gormly]

Ok gormly, so i am to assume from your post that you imagine all the people who are not paying taxes now have also never paid taxes in their past, and will never pay taxes in their future, is that it? Further, they are NOT getting something for free. Everyone pays taxes, they pay taxes everytime they buy gas, everytime they buy food, clothes, alcohol, anything. They pay taxes every year on their car or home. Now only a person who actually MAKES 250k a year could imagine that its not much, and if you have 250k annually your income is hardly reduced to 50k after taxes, thats a pretty sad exaggeration. Even Warren Buffet was complaining that while his secretary pays 30% of her income as tax, he only pays 17%, neither of which would bring 250k to 50k, so lets not be overly dramatic here. I do have friends that have some nice homes with plenty room for several children and two middling cars, and they have household incomes of about 70-80k per year, and that seems like plenty to provide their needs. Albeit, most of these people if they lost their jobs would only be a month or two away from LOSING said house, and so i would imagine the difference between 250k annually and 80k annually is OWNING things as opposed to paying on loans.

At any rate, when our forefathers first levied income tax, income was defined as money made from investments, as they recognized the immorality of taxing those working for a "living" at all, and only taxed those working for "profit". The idea was that sweat and work was a direct exchange for monetary gain to provide livelihood, and that did not equal profit, just subsistence. Too bad the people in charge of our country today cant see their way through to such moral clarity.

Let me ask you this....in a relationship with a husband and wife, where the wife makes say....20k annually and the husband makes 100k annually. Now of course the husband wants a home that reflects his prosperity so say they buy a home that costs 500k, and the note is 3200 a month. In YOUR relationship, do the husband and wife BOTH pay 1600 each toward the mortgage because that is "fair"? It might be equal distribution of bills, but its a good way to foster resentment and anger in the marriage, and a quick way to a disfunctional relationship. Whether you understand it or not, we by sharing a society ARE in a relationship with each other, and a husband who sets himself up as the authority and mainstay of the relationship due to his higher income is one who is perpetrating emotional abuse upon the wife, who while making less may be doing something she believes in, and indeed something necessary.

On another note, it is a sad fact that in our society of capitalism the lions share of the profits go not to those who contribute most to their fellow man, but rather to those who manipulate the system the best. Those who trash intervention and protection for the lower class are supporting the idea that manipulation is a good model for our societal structure, and as such should not be surprised by the results you get. Believing yourself truly seperate from your human brothers and sisters only gains you emptiness and estrangement, and will never lead you to true fulfillment or satisfaction.

Here's another sick unattributed letter making the rounds on the Internet which appeared in my inbox today. I cleaned up the more glaring spelling and punctuation problems:

Dear Fellow Business Owner:

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President, and that my taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that our customers will have to see an increase in my fees of about 8%. I will also have to lay off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled through the parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on my employees’ cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of more fair way to approach this problem.

If you have a better idea, let me know. I am sending this letter to all business owners that I know.

Never in the US did I think we'd see it that we would be punished for having a different political party.