Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It's nice that you offer to give credit but you should have done that upfront, not after you've been busted.

With respect, I haven't been "busted". I simply posted a (at that time) un-sourced message board post. I never claimed this was a personal experience and moved directly into discussion of the topic itself.

This is the last time I'll address this issue as it is derailing the thread and the intent of the thread itself. If you don’t' like it, don't read it. Everything that has been posted since the OP has been original thoughts and opinions from many members.

Back on topic:

I think a perfect example of a practical application of redistribution of wealth is Sarah Palin's practice of Sharing the oil wealth with Alaskans. It's a great idea, the people loved her for it and it helped the economy.

What do you all think?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree for the most part with the member who replied to you in that thread.

The resources of Alaska should in a way "belong" to the citizens there. So sharing in the profits of those resources is not a bad idea.

As they also mentioned, it isn't the same as taking money away from other citizens and giving it back to others who haven't earned it.

Perhaps we could look at something that applied this mentality to each state individually, rather than a broad, sweeping government sponsored program of redistribution?

**Perhaps more importantly - BH agrees with something Sarah Palin has done! Imagine my shock! **

[edit on 29-10-2008 by nyk537]

Originally posted by nyk537
The resources of Alaska should in a way "belong" to the citizens there. So sharing in the profits of those resources is not a bad idea.

And so the resources of the US should, in a way, "belong" to the citizens here. So, sharing in the profits is a good idea. The resources are just not oil, but different commodities, services, etc.

As they also mentioned, it isn't the same as taking money away from other citizens and giving it back to others who haven't earned it.

I disagree! She took it away from the corporations in the form of tax and gave it to the people who didn't earn it (the citizens). The citizens did nothing to earn that money.

Perhaps we could look at something that applied this mentality to each state individually, rather than a broad, sweeping government sponsored program of redistribution?

I would support that. But I also support it on a national level, considering the lop-sided distribution of wealth in the country now.

**Perhaps more importantly - BH agrees with something Sarah Palin has done! Imagine my shock!

**

Hey, I was a little surprised, myself.

whats wrong with using the money for educational classes and skill building courses for low income people and their family? i think it all starts with education. that would not be just giving the money away, people will walk away with skills that can lead to better paying jobs and they in turn can put the money back into the economy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
over $250,000 per year

I don't mean to single you out, BS, but I keep seeing this over and over again and finally have to ask: Is this an attitude along the lines of as long as it is 'them' and not 'me?' That is what it always sounds like to me when someone mentions the $250K+ point. What if you say this to one of the 'them' without knowing it?

Also, a general question: Doesn't Obama plan to bring back the inheritance tax Bush pretty much did away with? Just curious.

reply to post by AshleyD


We can't really even be sure it's $250,000 anymore. It was, but then it was $200,000, then the other day Biden said it was $150,000, so who knows? By the time Obama is sworn in it could be $50,000. It's hard to believe anything the man says (either of them).

Ive been inspired. If I ever have a McCain supporter waiting on me at a diner, i'll take his tip and give it to his boss, telling him that the trickle-down effect will eventually benefit him in some way.

But seriously, how lame do you have to be to screw a waiter out of his tip? I don't care if you've been in the food service industry. You're still inconsiderate.

If you wanted to show the waiter what Obama could do for him, maybe you should have asked him what it would be like to actually have affordable health insurance and an increase in hourly pay, with a cut in his taxes.

Also, one thing you probably forgot in your haze of self-satisfaction....I doubt that homeless man pays taxes.

If I were you, I would take that waiter a tip and tell him that he was part of a social experiment. Save some kind of face. Not all McCain supporters have to be completely ignorant of the facts all the time. Be the exception.

And to the guy that said politics shouldn't be brought into the workplace....It IS a free country, and displaying your political affiliation should never be a reason enough to screw you out of your money. Where I work, there is a claw machine, and it has Obama and McCain dolls as prizes....No lie.

My point is, your rights as an American aren't checked at the door of your place of employment. Yet another fact that McCain and his cronies need to learn.

If Obama wins this country will be in trouble.

ok, a few more points. Midnightbrigade and many others here obviously have no understanding of the restaurant service industry. You DO tip busboys and hostess as well, thats what EACH waiter pays in tipshare at the end of the night. Just so you know, most restaurants, the waiter has to tip out at the end of their shift, 5% of their sales totals, and this goes to the busboys and hostesses, this is tipshare and so basically if you dont tip, the waiter is paying for some of your meal, PLUS they are paying your tip to the hostess and busboys. This means that if you tip 10%, the waiter only gets 5%. the restaurant does NOT include wages for services in the cost of the meal, it covers the employees taxes, and thats about it.

As you make decisions based upon your misunderstanding of THIS issue, its no surprise that your decisions on our economic issues are equally misinformed. Much of our taxes are already GIVEN away to the rich, so why should those paying taxes benefit from the money they give as well? Taxes are SUPPOSED to provide services to those being taxed, so why shouldnt those services provided be healthcare and education, rather than more missiles, more oil profits, and protectionism for big pharma and big agro?

The problem here is the same problem inherent in all american society, its a complete lack of spiritual connection with your fellow man. The idea that people rewarded for nothing in a vacuum will continue to do nothing is flawed. A tribal human living in a valley that provides all their needs (clean water, food, and perhaps fruit and veggies) does not sit around all day doing nothing but eating. They CREATE. they create art, they build larger homes, and they build systems to facilitate their needs and desires.

Do all those "bums" given money or the poor in the projects do this? Perhaps not, but thats not donated money given in a vacuum, its a little help in a life of control and oppression. What good do you expect a homeless person to do with the $10 bucks you give him? go invest in the market? you are not giving him the means to bring himself up, your just giving him the means to get by for another day or so. What does our system tell people when minimum wage is so low that benefits can give them more than they would make at a minimum wage job, and neither gives them enough to get ahead? It tells them that they will never get anywhere, their life will never change, and they may as well get high and just entertain themselves for the alloted time they have.

I work in a bachelor degreed position here in new orleans, and the most paid here for my job is 10/hour, a bit higher than minimum wage but not nearly enough to survive off of. I cant pay rent, a car note, utilities, and food of of that. Fortunately i am only here to spend time with my family and know i can make much more doing the same thing in other states. Point being, in areas like new orleans, that have few protections for workers, the corporations really stick it to the workers, and offer nothing in return, and this is a system that beats people down and breaks them. It destroys families, destroys spirit and spirituality, and breeds depression and hopelessness. If i had started my career here, i would never have been able to earn enough money, as an individual, to save up, educate myself, or move away....all i'd be able to do is get by day to day. And largely, due to our outsourcing of our economy, the only jobs available in many places, like mine, are entry level service and labor jobs that pay next to nothing.

The upper class, on the other hand, often make their money or subsidize their income off of things that seem criminal and dishonest. Enter all the inflated bank books, the subsidies voted in by crony politicians getting kickbacks, the banking system that makes the majority of their income off the poorest of their customers through inflated interest rates and sneaky overdraft practices, etc. I have one friend who has a business replacing peoples SS numbers with something called a CPN, a number you use instead of your social when you go to get loans for homes or business. A person pays my friend thousands of dollars and my friend attaches something called "trade lines" to this cpn that make it look as though that person owns houses, yachts, etc that they have been paying on for years and this person can then use this CPN number to qualify for million dollar business loans that they in actuallity have no history or assets to qualify for. These are the types of deceipt and crooked practices available to the wealthy elite that allow them to get past the mechanisms installed to keep the poor poor. They live by different rules than us. They dont go to jail when we do. They get business opportunities than we do. They have more freedom than we do.

In our country we have a punitive system through credit etc, that makes it much more expensive to be poor than to be rich, and this is considered morally a good thing. It is much more expensive for a poor person to get a vehicle, a home, a loan, even utilities. And the dearth of spirituality in our land allows people to believe that this is a good thing.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Also, a general question: Doesn't Obama plan to bring back the inheritance tax Bush pretty much did away with? Just curious.

Please! Tax people 100% of their inheritence, after the first $1 million.

The "death" tax. It is absolutely the kindest and fairest tax imaginable, and will level out the playing field like nothing else.

How can anyone disagree with this? Or do you think the Kennedy's, Bush's and Hiltons are more deserving of a blessed life than other people?

Are there any cute anecdotal stories reflecting how this might be a bad idea (similar to the OP?) I would be interested in reading any.

Originally posted by AshleyD
I don't mean to single you out, BS, but I keep seeing this over and over again and finally have to ask: Is this an attitude along the lines of as long as it is 'them' and not 'me?' That is what it always sounds like to me when someone mentions the $250K+ point. What if you say this to one of the 'them' without knowing it?

I have to be honest with you, Ashley: if my family was making over $250k a year, I still wouldn't mind Obama's plan, serious. There is a qualitative difference, as you surely know, and not quantitative one between reall Joe Plumbers who in reality make 47k and the ficticious plumber who is good for 300k. The former is struggling to buy gas, while the latter is struggling with choices of $80 vs $87 bottle of wine.

I'm paying A LOT in local taxes. That hurts, but then again I am a citizen and need to be responsible for the community. Same goes for America in general.

i have noticed that no one responds to any of my long and drawn out replys or to some of the others and its easy to see why. You cant deny that the corporate welfare in our country has massively outweighed the welfare to the poor, and that point invalidates the whole distribution of wealth question, so this venue of attack is quickly avoided.

reply to post by Buck Division


Hello there. Maybe I'm slow but were you being serious or facetious? Thanks. I happen to abhor the inheritance tax.

Edit to add comment for BS: Thanks for your reply.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Buck Division


Take an accounting class. Seriously

Think about this. I didn't write it and I have no idea who did.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Originally posted by nyk537
With respect, I haven't been "busted". I simply posted a (at that time) un-sourced message board post. I never claimed this was a personal experience and moved directly into discussion of the topic itself.

Oh, but you did claim it as your own. There was no disclaimer made and the story was all in the first person. a third person starts off something like this: a guy walks into a bar... If the intent was not to claim it as your own, then why not make it clear in your OP. Further more, why did everyone believe it was your personal story. and lastly, why did you allow everyone to go on believing it was your personal story until you were called out for plagiarism?

Not that this makes much difference....it's the shameful story that matters. But hey, whether I am pro Obama, pro McCain, or pro whatever, I would not want my name associated with that story in the context you presented it in.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Buck Division

 

Hello there. Maybe I'm slow but were you being serious or facetious? Thanks. I happen to abhor the inheritance tax.
[edit on 10/29/2008 by AshleyD]

I was quite serious Ashley. I know many people hate the inheritance tax. And I absolutely believe people have a right to leave a SMALL fortune to their relatives.

But to leave a large fortune? Why do you think that is fair?

reply to post by Buck Division


Reply to
Please! Tax people 100% of their inheritence, after the first $1 million.

The "death" tax. It is absolutely the kindest and fairest tax imaginable, and will level out the playing field like nothing else.

How can anyone disagree with this? Or do you think the Kennedy's, Bush's and Hiltons are more deserving of a blessed life than other people?

Are there any cute anecdotal stories reflecting how this might be a bad idea (similar to the OP?) I would be interested in reading any.


What the hell are you talking about the death tax is the most fair tax. The death tax should not exist. People pay taxes their whole life and for what so when they die right before they pass their inheritance on to their kindred be taxed again. To "level out the playing field" give me a break. Everyone in this country has the exact same rights and same ability to make it big but some people drop out of high school, some drop out of college, some don't even need to go to college if they are hard working enough(60-65+ hours a week). While there are others that just work 40 hour weeks and they expect to get a check from the government because a wealthy doctor who took out student loans to get through college, put his time in medical school, and was just hit by a bus and killed. That money should go to his children and widow who do not have a man of the house anymore.

I am 100% against the death tax because it i unfair to tax people alive then again when they die.

Originally posted by Buck Division
But to leave a large fortune? Why do you think that is fair?

I'll answer that.

Because it's their money that they earned!

What right does the government have to dictate how much money a person can have, or leave?

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Buck Division

 

Hello there. Maybe I'm slow but were you being serious or facetious? Thanks. I happen to abhor the inheritance tax.
[edit on 10/29/2008 by AshleyD]

I was quite serious Ashley. I know many people hate the inheritance tax. And I absolutely believe people have a right to leave a SMALL fortune to their relatives.

But to leave a large fortune? Why do you think that is fair?

I agree! If you are born into wealth, you are actually poor, it's your parents who are rich. If they leave all their millions/billions to you, then you did nothing to earn the money and are just as lazy as the poor that keep getting so much flack in this thread. So why not take it all away and make these silver spoon offspring re-earn whar their parents earned; otherwise, pump the money back into the economy to those who are productive, hard workers.