posted
The P.E.A. Party asks the basic question, Poor Enough Already? in much the same way as the TEA Party asks "Taxed Enough Already."
The difference is that the PEA Party doesn't think that big government is the sole, main, or even important cause for ones lack of prosperity.
The TEA Party says they are against the redistribution of wealth.
The PEA Party is against the redistribution of wealth, and since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
The PEA Party is not anti-wealth. We are anti-greed, anti-slime, and anti-idiot. It does not promote class warfare, for there are far more greedy, slimy idiots in the middle class and the poor than in the small ranks of the rich and uber-rich. However, when you combine the power of the wealthy with greed, slime, and idiocy that is a recipe for disaster.
A poor criminal robs one person at a time. A wealthy criminal robs nations.
Only the government has the power to limit the greed, idiocy, and slime and sleaze of the deviant with wealth and power.
Cutting the government, cutting regulations and oversight, cutting the power and reach of those elected to help us can not be a good thing in combating the greedy, the idiots, and the slime-balls.
Remember--it took a lot of slimy and sleazy folks to make assets toxic.
The TEA Party warns of a (some say promotes) violent civil war if their concerns are ignored. The PEA Party wants to remind every one that the most violent revolts have not been those of folks thinking they were over-taxed, but by those of the middle and poor classes against those of wealth and power who followed idiots, greedy leaders, and slime balls. Think French Revolution. Think Russian Revolution. Think Chinese Civil War. Think Vietnam.
The only successes of such class war have been the non-violent ones (think India). That is what the PEA Party supports.
Finally, the TEA Party had some issues with jokes being made about their name.
The PEA party is even more ripe for jokes with its name. But remember--the PEA Party is made up of people who have become p-----d off at being p-----d upon by the wealthy and powerful. We aren't going to take it any longer.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The PEA Party is against the redistribution of wealth
it appears that you are completely for this since your very next line states
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
Two things, first it is not always an 'error' that the wealth of the middle class and poor flow to the wealthy. Second, you absolutely are for redistributing the wealth of the rich to the poor and middle class, using the government to do so. Why would you say that you are not? This leads to many questions.... How will you determine that the money a rich person has is because the rich person took it from the poor? Are actors, singers, and music groups exploiting the poor and middle class because they take money from the poor for the actor, singer, or music groups own personal gain? I mean Jim Carrey got like $20 million for the Cable Guy! Should all profits from Avatar and Titanic be seized and be returned to the poor and middle class? How about all of the profits from the Star Wars franchise, including merchandise? Those movies and merchandise have reaped billions and billions from the poor and middle class. How are you going to determine what is greed? If I become rich by starting and growing a small business into a very large one by providing goods and services at low prices that benefits the poor, will you tax my wealth to give back to the middle class and poor simply because I end up making a lot of money? How do you decide what is rich? How do you decide who is poor? If I am 'poor' but own a car, cell phone, 46" tv, microwave, dishwasher, etc do I still get to take from the rich? Can I work a minimum wage job and just supplement my income by taking from the rich?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
A system which relies on being able to confiscate the fruits of your labor or to imprison you in order to attain compliance is not "non-violent" in any rational sense of the word.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A poor criminal robs one person at a time. A wealthy criminal robs nations.
Only the government has the power to limit the greed, idiocy, and slime and sleaze of the deviant with wealth and power.
Once a government has the power to limit wealth on the part of the people you don't like, it also has the power to limit wealth on the part of the people you do like. In other words, if you grant the government the power to help the poor, you have automatically granted them the power to help the rich. And since the rich can do more for any politician than the poor can, you've basically screwed yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Cutting the government, cutting regulations and oversight, cutting the power and reach of those elected to help us can not be a good thing in combating the greedy, the idiots, and the slime-balls.
It can only be a good thing in combating the corporate monstronsities that have taken over this country (and pretty much every other one in the world). The only way to keep corporations from sucking at the public teat (which is the only way to combat the greedy, the idiots and the slime-balls) is to make it as constitutionally off-limits for the government to use that teat as it is for them to institute a state religion.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember--it took a lot of slimy and sleazy folks to make assets toxic.
Not really. The whole toxic assets thing was the brainstorm of computer geeks. We're talking about people who are great problem solvers, who excel in looking outside the box and finding ways to take advantage of anything and everything a system allows for.
When the dot-com bubble burst, you had a ton and a half of geeks out of work. A lot of them had learned that they rilly, rilly like money. And a lot of them had grown acquainted with money people and money manipulation during the dot-com days. So they found their way into big business.
The average computer geek has a computer game mentality. The long term social repercussions of what they do really aren't so much their concern. Not while they're working. They're about finding loopholes and elegant solutions and possibilities that even the designers of the system weren't aware they'd put in. Hell, I do that all the time at work. But with me, it's software. These guys were in the guts of the American corporate banking solar plexus. In the guts of a system that do-gooders like yourself had unintentionally granted an enormous amount of power. Oops. And the rest is history.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
You read it that we are for taking money from the rich.
I never said anything about taking money from the wealthy. I said things about stopping the abuse some (the slimy, greedy, and idiotic) of the rich have used to rob the middle class and the poor.
I did not say a thing about raising taxes or increasing welfare, but you assume I am.
Sure, I would like to see the end of some tax breaks.
I am referring to things like ending the small tax breaks for the wealthy, since that will do nothing for me and others in the middle class or the poor except increase the debt my children and I will have to pay.
I am referring to reinstating the inheritance tax because, face it, do we really need more Paris Hilton's with unearned millions while hard working folks can't find a job to earn minimum wage?
But I am also for cutting down the size of Government. The TEA Party folks only seem to want to cut government that helps the common folks--like Health Care, Unemployment, Welfare. What about the big players? What about Boeing, Haliburton, Big-Agra? Do we really need milk subsidies?
I am for limiting what Pay Day loans can charge, and what Banks can charge on their credit cards. I want to reserve the right to sue a stupid doctor who performs the wrong operation. I want to preserve the right to sue a company that makes faulty and dangerous products because they figure the lawsuits would be less expensive than the cost of making a safe and reliable product.
These are the errors that some with wealth and power have used to redistribute the wealth from the poor and middle class. They need to be stopped.
Yes, not all the money that has gone from the middle class to the wealthy has been an error. To stop it all would be to freeze the economy and that helps no one. But the unprecedented rate that the wealth has been sucked up hints that something is wrong, and what I've mentioned above is a fine beginning of what that might be.
The PEA Party stands for FREE & FAIR Trade. That means we have enough people watching the scales. See, when cities were first created one of the earliest duties of a government was to make sure that the merchants used accurate scales. Otherwise you would be paying for a pound of butter that was actually 1/2 a pound. But modern "small government" and "no regulation" cries would have the folks who check on those scales removed. After all, its expensive to make sure your scales are accurate--they say. The PEA Party says, its also more profitable to use fraudulent scales when no one is checking up on you.
Lisa, if the Computer Geeks abused the system to make toxic assets which crippled our economy fine, lets stop them. They are the short-term Greedy folks, most of whom are now in that wealthy tier, that need to be stopped. How do you stop them? Government oversight and regulation. Not--calling them geeks and hoping they'll go away.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
Then vote them all out in November.
I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
Hey what do I know. Tax the rich more, and tax their businesses as well. Let me ask you a serious question. If you have a business and you are paying MORE money out for taxes and health care, are you going to have the money to grow your business or hire more employees?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it would be helpful, Darth_Mauve, if you gave a specific example of the kind of wealth redistribution you're talking about? For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners. The mortgage exemption basically gives money to people who own a lot of house. And so on. No doubt Lisa, Geraine and DK could get behind ending these subsidies for the wealthy. But your current formulation just sounds like a dog whistle. Give us some specifics of what programs you would end, and you may see more support.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that? Or are you just another type of class warrior who thinks that people are poor because they are lazy or stupid, and that everyone is on a level playing field regardless of the circumstances of their birth?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that?
I recognize that the economic and governmental structure we have allows me to succeed if I take advantage of those opportunities. I have so far failed to do so due to my own failures but the opportunities are still there for the taking.
Are there people in this country that do not have those opportunities? Yes there are but I find those people also do not have the opportunity to get into an internet chat room to discuss it.
These are also people that are not being kept down by "greedy corporations" but primarily by a lack of educational opportunities.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"These are also people that are not being kept down by "greedy corporations" but primarily by a lack of educational opportunities. "
These two are ridiculously connected, not separate as you state.
"Are there people in this country that do not have those opportunities? Yes there are but I find those people also do not have the opportunity to get into an internet chat room to discuss it."
These two groups are also not completely connected.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners.
This would be a very good start, and expand it to include the immediate end of ethanol too.
quote: I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
well, what you actually said was
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
which seems to be saying that the error is the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy from the poor and middle class, and you seek to correct that error. If the wealth is not returned to the poor and middle class, where does it go? Your original post seems to be making the case against the wealthy.
quote: I want to reserve the right to sue a stupid doctor who performs the wrong operation. I want to preserve the right to sue a company that makes faulty and dangerous products because they figure the lawsuits would be less expensive than the cost of making a safe and reliable product.
Who is arguing to remove those legal protections?
quote: I am referring to reinstating the inheritance tax because, face it, do we really need more Paris Hilton's with unearned millions while hard working folks can't find a job to earn minimum wage?
Paris Hilton has earned millions of dollars as well, and has created wealth and employment for many many people. There is nothing wrong with Paris Hilton being rich yet you make it sound like there is. I fail to understand why being born wealthy is something to be punished for. Your idea is simply stealing from a family because someone died which seems grossly unfair. One way a family can build their wealth is through inheritance yet you want to deny a family something that was earned because someone else doesn't have the same thing?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I fail to understand why being born wealthy is something to be punished for."
I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment. Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, we were talking about ending subsidies, not making things illegal. To be clear, no I do not ethanol to made illegal.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: MPH, we were talking about ending subsidies, not making things illegal. To be clear, no I do not ethanol to made illegal.
Just wanted to make sure.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Paul, you should not be allowed to leave something behind for your children? If that's the case, feel free to write me into your will instead of your kids. I'll make sure they never see a dime of it.
Doesn't everyone want a better life for their children then they had?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment."
Birth wealth has a very strong correlation with life expectancy, education, future income, and a whole host of other life outcomes.
"Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment. "
While letting families accumulate wealth over generations punishes far more people than taxing wealth upon the death of the owner.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So Paul, you should not be allowed to leave something behind for your children?"
Who said this at all?
First of all, you get HUGE benefits from having parents who are wealthy. You are leaving something behind for your children simply by virtue of having money that you can use to educate them, keep them healthy, provide a home for, etc.
Secondly, the federal estate taxes are taxes that only kick in beyond a certain level of wealth. I would say being able to leave a million dollars behind, without any tax at all, is leaving something behind for your children.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: First of all, you get HUGE benefits from having parents who are wealthy. You are leaving something behind for your children simply by virtue of having money that you can use to educate them, keep them healthy, provide a home for, etc.
Secondly, the federal estate taxes are taxes that only kick in beyond a certain level of wealth. I would say being able to leave a million dollars behind, without any tax at all, is leaving something behind for your children.
Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: While letting families accumulate wealth over generations punishes far more people than taxing wealth upon the death of the owner.
So we should not let families accumulate wealth? Passing wealth onto heirs punishes many many people? I'm not sure how that follows unless you are saying that the wealth should have been seized by the government and given to whomever the government thinks is best because the accumulation of wealth over generations is a bad thing. Passing a family farm down over the generations is bad? How about a business, like a publishing company?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again? "
1) Life outcomes. People who are born wealthy stay wealthy. And live longer. And have access to better education. And are less likely to end up in jail. Are less likely to wreck lives with drugs. Etc etc etc.
2) There is not a level playing field. Estate taxes are a part of the reason for that.
3) How is not class warfare to endorse a system that heavily tilts the playing field to people who least need the tilt?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again? "
1) Life outcomes. People who are born wealthy stay wealthy. And live longer. And have access to better education. And are less likely to end up in jail. Are less likely to wreck lives with drugs. Etc etc etc.
2) There is not a level playing field. Estate taxes are a part of the reason for that.
3) How is not class warfare to endorse a system that heavily tilts the playing field to people who least need the tilt?
All of those still make you sound envious of their advantages and instead of trying to accumulate your own wealth so you can have those same advantages, you just want to take it from them.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So we should not let families accumulate wealth?"
Correct. Not if we want a level playing field for people who are born into our society.
"Passing wealth onto heirs punishes many many people? I'm not sure how that follows unless you are saying that the wealth should have been seized by the government and given to whomever the government thinks is best because the accumulation of wealth over generations is a bad thing."
YEs, it should have been seized by the government and redistributed in ways that help level the playing field by building and funding roads, schools, sewage systems, hospitals, etc.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment. Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment.
Was this money held collectively by the family before the person died? Or did it belong to one person who then gave it to another person? Why are you assuming that the wealth will go to family members? It may be most often the case, but certainly money is bequeathed to non-family members as well. Should those people be taxed?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Ah I see again. So all wealth belongs to the government to be distributed as they see fit. Now tell me how that would change anything? Do you really think ANY government would actually distribute such wealth in a fair manner? I certainly don't and history backs me up on that with a certainty.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
So, basically, you're rejecting the entire concept of private property?
Well, that answers that, I guess.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not speaking for Paul here, but rejecting something as an assumption doesn't mean you're disbanding it completely, simply not starting from the premise that it has to exist, period. Private property is something we made up. If there are problems with it as a concept, we can rework it into whatever we think will work best, whether that is pure communism or something else.
I think there is a quantity of money at which point, if you are starting your life off with it, both society and your own well being may be compromised. This isn't because I'm envious (indeed, whatever this amount of money is, let's call it a million dollars for now but bear in mind I just made that up, I am just as envious of someone starting out with $999,999.99, but with these hypothetical numbers, 999,999.99 has been determined to be less damaging to socio-economic fabric of society.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that accumulation of wealth over generations past a certain point is likely to be bad. The italicized part may have been an unspoken shared assumption, but I think it's worth talking about explicitly. I suspect that this argument effectively comes down to where that certain point is.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. I am not remotely prepared to argue where precisely that line falls, but I think it absolutely exists.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Ah I see again. So all wealth belongs to the government to be distributed as they see fit. Now tell me how that would change anything? Do you really think ANY government would actually distribute such wealth in a fair manner? I certainly don't and history backs me up on that with a certainty.
Why the assumption that he thinks that money should belong to the govt? Just because he doesn't believe wealth belongs to parents, that doesn't mean govt necessarily.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument would be that, first of all, bear in mind that government should MEAN the collective will of the people (and fair distribution of wealth would be an important building block to that notion of government), as opposed to something somehow separate from them. Second of all, money doesn't even EXIST without the collective will of the people. So money, by definition, is owned by people collectively and parceled out however they want. Right now, we've decided to do so in a way that gives it back to individuals to do whatever they want with, for the most part. But that's not where it started, that's how we chose to make it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a totally empty soundbite, when used against the argument that the poorer people are being stolen from in order to support the richer. For instance, it undermines the idea that the richer 50% are somehow supporting themselves off the taxes of the poorer, since very little in the way of taxes (in absolute terms) are paid by that lower half.
I agree that it is not in and of itself any concern in deciding levels of taxation, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that? Or are you just another type of class warrior who thinks that people are poor because they are lazy or stupid, and that everyone is on a level playing field regardless of the circumstances of their birth?
Aren't people that say the opposite playing class warfare as well?
Providing opportunity is different than providing all of the amenities of life. If you want to provide opportunity, then do it. Providing endless unemployment checks, welfare, health care and food stamps doesn't provide opportunity, it causes dependence. Everyone needs a job, a car, and a house, shouldn't the government provide those as well? How about a little personal responsibility and accountability instead of this idea that the government somehow owes you something?
I'm fine with ending subsidies on the wealthy. I'd be fine if everyone paid a flat percentage for Federal Income Tax, regardless of income. When the government gives people federal benefits because they are poor and does not provide a way for them to get out of poverty, then I have a problem. It isn't the rich people that are keeping the poor people in poverty.
Sadly I can totally envision conversations like this taking place:
Senator 1: "You can't just end the hand outs, that would be mean! These people need our help!"
Senator 2: "What do we do? We can't pay for it!
Senator 1: "Oh, this guy that employs 10,000 people and provides services to other businesses makes too much money. It doesn't matter if he grew up in a lower middle class family and started his business 30 years ago in a garage and has worked 16 hour days for years! He's an evil rich man!
Senator 2: "Oh, Lets just take a big chunk of his money and give it to these less fortunate! I need to get elected again!"
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My argument would be that, first of all, bear in mind that government should MEAN the collective will of the people (and fair distribution of wealth would be an important building block to that notion of government),
Government is the agent of the people. As such, it doesn't have any rights that the people who invest it with agency have.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure whether we're disagreeing here or not. I think the notion of the goverment as something separate from the people, period, should be a ridiculous notion.
Note that I said "should." I do not think this is the case right now. But a major reason it is not the case is precisely BECAUSE of the inertial corruption that occurs when power accumulates over time (money being one form of power).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
Also, limiting the argument to federal income tax ignores payroll taxes.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
quote: For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners.
This would be a very good start, and expand it to include the immediate end of ethanol too.
quote: I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
well, what you actually said was
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
which seems to be saying that the error is the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy from the poor and middle class, and you seek to correct that error. If the wealth is not returned to the poor and middle class, where does it go? Your original post seems to be making the case against the wealthy.
If there is a transfer from A to B, and you stop the transfer, then A has more wealth and B has less; yes. So, agreed, DM is making a case for the wealthy having less wealth than they do now. But surely there is a valid distinction between this, and arguing for transfers from B to A?
Now, of course, if it is the case (and this would not at all surprise me) that there exist transfers from poor to rich, and from rich to poor, and that the net favours the wealthy, but you argue only for stopping the poor-to-rich transfers while leaving in place the rich-to-poor ones - then, indeed, you'd have a case that this is class warfare. But I think you ought to demonstrate that this is DM's position before jumping all over him.
quote:Paris Hilton has earned millions of dollars as well, and has created wealth and employment for many many people. There is nothing wrong with Paris Hilton being rich yet you make it sound like there is.
There certainly is something wrong with the Hilton woman being rich; but the fault does not lie in her, and she should not be punished for it. Rather it lies in the idiots who make it possible for celebrities to become wealthy through sponsorship deals and whatnot. Similarly, the extreme wealth of top athletes is not the fault of the athletes but of the idiot sports fans. Alas, the only solution I can think of is a eugenics program not likely to find acceptance any time soon.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be fine if everyone paid a flat percentage for Federal Income Tax, regardless of income.
This idea presumes that all money is equal and should thus be taxed equally. I think that is a completely false assumption. In order to just barely get by, a person needs a certain amount of money for rent and food- let's say around $10K a year. At around 30K a year, you're probably able to afford some niceities- you can eat out and go to the movies when you want. You can actually afford health care. At 50K, you could probably afford a house, go on nice vacations, etc. At 500K, you can laregely get whatever you want.
A progressive tax system isn't about punishing people for making more money. It's about accepting the reality that there is a slight diminishing return on the value of money. The money to just survive is of greater value than the money to take a vacation and it makes sense to tax the two differently.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
