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.
That's not what the OP is proposing. Actually, the OP hasn't said what s/he was proposing, exactly. But my guess is that the OP isn't talking about workers making the same amount. This is a bizarre example you bring up. The Op probably has in mind Bill and Larry, on the assembly line, paying lower taxes than the owner of the assembly line, who currently is getting paid 10 times more than Bill and Larry.
Example: why shouldn't Bill Gates pay 60% of his income in taxes, like the parents or grandparents of some of the people posting here did? Or like their parents' doctor used to? What, Bill would actually miss two billion out of the 3+ that he makes? He can't live on 1 measly billion/year? No, he wouldn't miss the money. That much is clear, because he's offered to pay off the US national debt. So we know he wouldn't really mind being taxed more.
My guess is that that's the sort of thing the OP had in mind, when starting the thread. But it would be nice if the OP could come back to their own thread, and clarify what the opening post is about. It's only been, what, 3 days since the OP created the thread... It makes one wonder if the OP is all that interested in the topic, or was more interested in just stirring things up.
The OP specifically said "Redistribution of wealth", which is precisely what I addressed. It has nothing to do with income, I simply used an example where both subjects made the same amount to illustrate that differences in wealth don't necessarily correlate with differences in income.
You're talking about changing the tax code, which is a completely different issue. I'm not sure why you made that leap. The Op may have been that far off base, but I don't have any reason to assume so. So I addressed what was asked, not what might have been meant.
These debates always get so unbelievably stupid it makes me almost ashamed to be American and breathe the same air as these morons.
Everything is not black-and-white. We aren't talking about communism, we're talking about leveling the playing field a bit so workers get what they OUGHT to be getting. Do you really think CEOs work THAT hard? Lol.
Dum-dums can't figure it out that all their deserved raises they never got went to that 1%, not them. They haven't statistically, as a group, had a real increase in wages in 30 years. They are programmed not to think critically, vote against self-interests.
I watched a video the other day some well known rich/wealthy person did(can't remember whom) basically saying all this talk about minimum wage, why isn't there a maximum wage? I think I can get behind that. It would be one way to redistribute wealth that isn't actually taking hard earned money. One can have 1.2 mill in the bank, but there's no reason that should be your paycheck. Let's say max wage was 200k; all the extra money made could go to taxes and employee bonuses and raises. Instead of making 500k a year, you get 200k and the 300k goes back in the company, taxes, employees and if they can save their money, not buy the gold plated elephant foot umbrella stand for 40k, then they won't suffer that much. That seems to be the advice for us lessers, save your money, don't remotely enjoy life. Technically every position in the working chain has a maximum wage based on position where you either stay at or move up. In the school system the costodians make the least, followed by other general staff, then the bus drivers, office, teachers, councelers(who may be assistant principles), then the principle, and so fourth. Each posistion has where it starts out and where it's capped. Why is it the higher you go, the more infinite the money gets? There's no level cap, these people are running around the PVP area doing 9999+ one hit kills while the rest of us are trying to reach lvl50 spending all our money on potions running around with moderate armor and weapons.
Anyway I believe if the higher ups had wage caps like the underlings eventually wealth would be redistributed, it's not sticking a hand in their bank account and taking earned money, they'll just hafta work and save to keep it their like the rest of us do, or try to do. Like we're always told to do. And they say; "mo money, mo problems." For who? Might be "low money, more problems," or "no money, more problems." When your four million dollar mansion can be paid off in about six months, the electric bill ain't spit. I'm living proof that no money is many, many problems, and a lil bit of money is probably worse. Most of these people make so much money it negates most problems, unless they royally screw themselves.
So by "millionaires and billionaires", do you mean people who have accumulated at least 1 million dollars?
That's upper middle class, Raddo. Middle aged people in the upper middle class have accumulated that.
Well, dang, and here I thought WE were "upper middle class", with our nice house, a couple acres of land, RV, pickup, car, ATVs (2), and assorted other toys.
Now I find out that since we don't have a net worth of 1 million dollars or more, and only about 175,000 in ready cash, we are barely above the poverty line!
What a let down.
Please, rich folks, start sending us that $100 per month so we can get firmly ensconced in the "upper middle class" category where we belong.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
Because Larry is a racist, obviously.
Bill was clearly an honor student and model of the neighborhood, before turning to a life of petty crime to support his lavish vacations and gifts to the family. And his opioid habit. He is, in fact, a victim of his environment and needs our help. A hand up, not a hand out. That Bill was busted for selling 'loosies' during a crime emphasis sweep is also racist, obviously. Because petty crime is clearly the only option old Bill has left?
Larry is culpable, he didn't build (that) business or whatnot. In fact the money he invested was on the backs of oppressed others in low income neighborhoods, people who never had a chance at their fair share. No one is quite sure what happened to State and Federal "block grant" money sent to Bill's district, though two city councilmen are now under investigation for money laundering and fraud. It's in the courts now.
Larry's outcomes are chance, and we can fix random chance through progressive taxation to equilibrate him with Bill so that outcomes are equal. As they obviously should be.
Bill and Larry each have parents who came from so-called "____hole" countries, too. Oh, wait: Larry's parents were workers, with a father who was there when he could be but put in the hours to ensure food was always on the table, too. Life was tough growing up, but Larry did know the value of a dollar all the way along, and wasn't cutting class and smoking pot the day they taught "compound interest" in Middle School. Bill thought all of that was "for busters!" and chose to better himself pressuring his teen GF for sex instead.
Bill, on the other hand, had no such parental structure. His dad is a bum with shady past, seldom around. His mom enjoyed dancing and couldn't conjugate a verb if it meant the firing squad. The only thing he knows about saving is to save it to the end of the week to go on a real bender, or take baby mama to Vegas and buy lottery tickets next time there is such a windfall. Pretty soon, though, don't you worry: that teen GF mentioned earlier will have a baby coming along soon. She'll move in with Bill's mom, if nowhere else to go.
Move to California if you want wealth redistribution, I read an interesting article over the weekend from my favorite site National Review, I do believe. Suggesting that they need to be allowed to march on their merry way, just this side of secession, because that's what states rights are all about. Let them flirt with single payer health care, services for illegal aliens, and oppressive taxation. See where it all lands, as a social experiment now over the past roughly 50 years of far Left control, an example of what happens when bums are allowed to vote in their own redistribution of money from others through taxation. That makes sense; why stop them? Not my problem, never will be again, though it's still my favorite state by-far in terms of things to do. While I may never again be a resident, I may also spend portions of my retirement hanging out nomadically, too, in a Class B.
(They also did point out that suppression of First Amendment rights needs to be stopped here and now, regardless of they are inconvenient to a Far Left regime, but that is another matter to be dealt with separately in the Federal courts going after the Communists in CA State Government.)
I read somewhere that if all the wealth from all the millionaires and billionaires were distributed equally, everyone would get a lump-sum payment of a little under $300,000. Just like what happens with lottery winners, 95% of people would blow through that in less than 2 years.
Then we would have all the movers and shakers who built and run this country with no money to open new businesses, no money to employ other Americans, and no money to invest in new technologies or inventions. The country would collapse. The next Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison would not be able to produce the innovations he has in his head.
You must really hate capitalism.
You also must be pretty poor. I have a feeling if you were a successful business man like Larry from the previous post that you would not be very keen on the government taking your money from you at the point of a gun.
Because they all use their OWN money to start these businesses? Nooooooooooooo...they use other people's via banks...I thought that's what all smart people do? Never use your own money, right?
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979
Bill and Larry start work at the same company, doing the same job, on the same day. Both make the same wage, buy houses in the same neighborhood at the same time for the same price, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids, etc., etc. In other words, their economic situations are as similar as they can possible be.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
I used to be more liberal on this issue but life experience has shown the above story to be true time and again. You can't solve poverty by giving money to people who don't know how to responsibly spend it. There are exceptions but most people are poor because they make poor decisions. Often they spend their money on
'bling items' like customizing cars, $250 headphones, etc rather than paying down their debt or buying stock.
I will always support a basic safety because even dumb people shouldn't starve but I strongly disagree mass wealth redistribution.
Canada would tax him more than the US. So would most European countries.
Of course I know how much good he's doing. He could still do that, if 1/2 or even 2/3 of his income were paid to the IRS.
Would the federal gov't spend the money more wisely? Are you aware that Trump just slashed the budget of the State Dept., and eliminated a significant number of ambassador positions? And what did he do with that "savings"? He earmarked it for himself and other high earners. Our diplomatic service, our infrastructure at home, our PELL Grant fund for college scholarships, our science and medicine R & D, our schools and state governments, all need to have their funding restored to functional levels. The electrical grid nationwide needs maintenance and repair, water delivery systems, bridge repair, train tracks are at risk of causing more accidents due to neglect, the list goes on and on.
Not at the 60% rate you spoke of. He'd leave. Then you get no tax revenue. People already pay 50% in combined rate taxation. Louis Vuitton moved once the socialist called for 75% tax rates. You don't get to unlawfully fleece the rich.
So, even with your knowledge of how Bill Gates spends his money, you'd still force him to give his money to Donald Trump to spend.
The very reason Bill Gates is doing this separately is because it can then become reliable, which is the critical component often missing in these things. The government cannot be relied upon as a charity house. Bill Gates wants to help people with HIS money. Donald Trump does not want to help people because he doesn't believe that is the government's role.
Why do you want to legally force Bill Gates to give his money to the government? Not that it matters, but he's a self made man that's created many good jobs for Americans.
The answer is you aren't interested in helping anyone but yourself. You're interested in hurting those that have become prosperous. You are the reason that the GOP base gets fired up and stingy. Nobody wants to support you that knows you, so you want the government to do it. You bunch up with similar minded fools and try to vote in numbers, still not understanding how wealth is created. If you simply organized into a business instead and served people, you'd go much further.
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
There isn't enough cash to redistribute Wealth. If you attempted to redistribute Wealth as assets, then the value of the assets would sharply decline.
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.
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.
