Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?
Yes, should 38 28.57%
No, should not 95 71.43%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2011, 04:51 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,065,293 times
Reputation: 10270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
The rich benefited from the horrific policies of the village idiot. Stands to reason that they should bear the brunt of the tax burden to aid the recovery and undo the mistake.
That "village idiot" is still creating horrific policies that are killing the economy....his name is obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2011, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,333 posts, read 26,255,278 times
Reputation: 15665
When did a change in the tax code gain the label of "redistribution of wealth", never heard the phrases used when the top marginal rate was 91%, 71%, even 50% back in the 80's.

Now a 4% change in the top rate to 39% is a redistribution of wealth - seems like the redistribution already occured, this would just be a correction back towards the norm.

Historical Top Tax Rate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,817,470 times
Reputation: 24863
I do not care about the redistribution but I do believe the wealthy receive more protection from the government than the poor and should pay the cost of this protection. They have the most to lose. I suggest and Income tax on all income from all sources with a deductable set at the 90th percentile. Then set the rate to cover current expenses plus paying down 10% of the deficit every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 06:01 AM
 
45,241 posts, read 26,477,444 times
Reputation: 24998
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I do not care about the redistribution but I do believe the wealthy receive more protection from the government than the poor and should pay the cost of this protection. They have the most to lose. I suggest and Income tax on all income from all sources with a deductable set at the 90th percentile. Then set the rate to cover current expenses plus paying down 10% of the deficit every year.
I'm sure there are a few individuals lacking morals who would agree with this plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,858,548 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
The rich benefited from the horrific policies of the village idiot. Stands to reason that they should bear the brunt of the tax burden to aid the recovery and undo the mistake.
I'm proud of you, I didn't think you were physically capable of insulting Obama like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,817,470 times
Reputation: 24863
FDF why do you call me immoral because I propose a distribution of taxes based on the amount of wealth being protected by government? What is immoral about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 10:04 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,483,645 times
Reputation: 4799
Default The Socialist Dream!

Quote:
In his first year, Allende also employed Keynesian measures to hike salaries and wages, thus pumping up the purchasing power of the middle and working classes. This "consumer revolution" benefited 95 percent of the population in the short run because prices were held down and employment went up. Producers responded to rising demand by employing previously underused capacity.
Utopia here we come!
Quote:
During the second and third years of the UP, demand outstripped supply, the economy shrank, deficit spending snowballed, new investments and foreign exchange became scarce, the value of copper sales dropped, shortages appeared, and inflation skyrocketed, eroding the previous gains for the working class. A thriving black market sprang up. The government responded with direct distribution systems in working-class neighborhoods. Worker participation in the management of enterprises reached unprecedented proportions. The strapped government could not keep the economy from going into free fall because it could not impose austerity measures on its supporters in the working class, get new taxes approved by Congress, or borrow enough money abroad to cover the deficit.
Well that was quick... How could that have happened so quick?

Quote:
The government of President Richard M. Nixon launched an economic blockade conjunction with U.S. multinationals (ITT, Kennecott, Anaconda) and banks (Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank). The US squeezed the Chilean economy by terminating financial assistance and blocking loans from multilateral organizations. But during 1972 and 1973 the US increased aid to the military, a sector unenthusiastic toward the Allende government. The United States also increased training Chilean military personnel in the United States and Panama.
Ohhh... Stop subsidizing the socialist lifestyle and refuse to do business with them. Dream over. While you/'re at it kill their leader and install a puppet government.

Salvador Allende's Leftist Regime, 1970-73 - Chilean Intelligence Agencies

Why? Because the president has the powers to:

Quote:
...seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law,
seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

Who gave the president that power? Congress did at its founding...

What was that about the altruistic intentions of governments?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 10:09 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,065,293 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
When did a change in the tax code gain the label of "redistribution of wealth", never heard the phrases used when the top marginal rate was 91%, 71%, even 50% back in the 80's.

Now a 4% change in the top rate to 39% is a redistribution of wealth - seems like the redistribution already occured, this would just be a correction back towards the norm.

Historical Top Tax Rate
It's actually an 11.5% tax increase.

Just like when Gov corzine raised the NJ sales tax from 6% to 7% and said it was a 1% increase. THAT was actually a 16.30% increase.

Stupid sheeple cannot figure that out. Or, they're just willfully ignorant.

Is it about revenue or perceived fairness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 10:11 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,065,293 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
FDF why do you call me immoral because I propose a distribution of taxes based on the amount of wealth being protected by government? What is immoral about that?
We're all protected equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2011, 10:13 AM
 
1,811 posts, read 1,211,361 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow View Post
Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth

47% of those surveyed say yes, the government should redistribute wealth through heavy taxes on the rich.



This is very interesting because I believe the official figure is about 47% of all people pay no federal income tax, whatsoever. Even more interesting is that this demographic is more likely to consume government services. So basically you have the government taking from one group and giving to another, yet the recipient class consistently clamors that they want even more from the productive class, and that the productive class is greedy and selfish for wanting to keep the spoils of their own labor. The productive class is shrinking by the day, and the recipient class is getting bigger and bigger. What will happen when there's no more worker bees left to carry everyone else on their back?
I would like you to cite the provision in the Constituition that authorizes such an action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top