Trouble understanding redistribution of wealth

[coldcube]

I understand what happen to the housing market.

I don’t understand what “redistribution of wealth” means and why wealth has to be redistributed.

I would love to hear from a supporter of “redistribution of wealth” and why a redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for the survival of our country.

Thanks

[smokin joe]

not a supporter but i think it was just a scam for votes

[william antley]

My basic understanding of "redistribution of wealth" is that entities earning more than "X" amount of dollars a year will have more of those dollars taken from them through taxation and those dollars, and more, will be given to those entities that do not earn that "X" amount of dollars a year. The value of "X" has yet to be established so, it can be any amount anyone wants it to be. I have heard "X" stated as being anywhere between $250000 to as low as $42000 annual income, don't know if that's gross, net or Adjusted Gross income.
Also under "redistribution", supposedly 95% of taxpayers will get a reduction of their tax rates and payments which will include the approximately 40+% of taxpayers who pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever.
It's very much like something Karl Marx is credited with stating. FROM EACH according to their abilities, TO EACH according to their needs.
Those who have will be required(forced) to give what they have earned to those who have not earned as much or, who have earned nothing at all.

[me75006]

It was invented by Robin Hood, take from the rich, give to the poor. A most noble idea, but a really ugly process. Later in years, it evolved into taking from most of the people, and keep some for the politicians, and give the rest to people who will vote for you. The actual process of taking was modernized by tax brackets & tax deductions, so that the sheeple could not compare who was being treated fairly and who was not. Keep them in the dark, ya know. In determining how much was fair to tax, it was decided that it would be subjected to opinions of the elected officials, who would be smart enough to undertake such a task, and still keep some for themselves, and their health plans, and their golden parachute retirement pensions, and all the other perks of serving in public office.

[k-fridge]

This guy can explain it to you.

http://www.answers.com/topic/karl-marx

[jpsmith1cm]

My basic understanding of "redistribution of wealth" is that entities earning more than "X" amount of dollars a year will have more of those dollars taken from them through taxation and those dollars, and more, will be given to those entities that do not earn that "X" amount of dollars a year. The value of "X" has yet to be established so, it can be any amount anyone wants it to be. I have heard "X" stated as being anywhere between $250000 to as low as $42000 annual income, don't know if that's gross, net or Adjusted Gross income.
Also under "redistribution", supposedly 95% of taxpayers will get a reduction of their tax rates and payments which will include the approximately 40+% of taxpayers who pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever.
It's very much like something Karl Marx is credited with stating. FROM EACH according to their abilities, TO EACH according to their needs.
Those who have will be required(forced) to give what they have earned to those who have not earned as much or, who have earned nothing at all.

On the surface, this sounds great! Tax the rich, they can afford it! Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

While the rich certainly can afford higher taxes, they aren't stupid enough to pay them.

The problem, as I see it, with the "Robin Hood" system, is this:

People making more than "X" will make efforts to make "X" or less, so as to avoid the punitive taxes.

In practical terms, this means the economic activity slows.

The people making in excess of the mythical "X" are also the people who CREATE economic activity (please read that as JOBS).

When taxation forces these people to reduce their economic activity, the number of available jobs decreases, affecting everyone.

Case in point.

Here in the Pittsburgh area, the Rooney family has been talking about selling part of the Steelers. It's a family deal, but it is a HUGE financial transaction.

Since "Robin the Hood" Obama was elected, the Rooney family has decided to push the deal through faster TO AVOID TAXES!!!

How much more proof do you need that the "rich" will avoid paying taxes whenever possible??

[Andy Schoen]

It's very much like something Karl Marx is credited with stating. FROM EACH according to their abilities, TO EACH according to their needs.

No, this is the essence of income redistribution. Actually, this phrase was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanc

[william antley]

Aside from my basic understanding, there are some difficult problems that apparently are not being considered, answers not being provided.

One is, there aren't enough "rich" people to provide those 'funds' that are to be taken from them to be redistributed to those who are not "rich" to make any difference in what they have at present.

Two, who are the "rich" anyway? There is no concrete definition of who is "rich". Where is the income line drawn to determine who will be required to suffer extra taxation so that those who are not "rich" can get their piece of that action?

Three, when this program does go into effect, how much of those extra taxes are actually going to go directly to those who are not "rich" and how much will actually go to a different recipient and, who will that recipient be?

Four, Will this program provide enough funds to those who are not "rich" to turn them into "rich" people or will it even make a difference since there's only so much in the way of funds that can be redistributed?

Five, a big one, where will funds come from when probably the majority of 'rich" entities being required to provide funds through taxes move their money to locations where the feds cannot get their grubbing hands on it?

Six, How can anyone believe that doing the "Robin Hood" can be "good for everyone involved" when this activity has been attempted several times in the past on various scales by various groups, and has utterly failed every single time it has been attempted?

And lastly, for now, why should those entities who have achieved a measure of financial success be penalized, marginalized, attacked, etc. for being successful and those who are not being financially "successful" be rewarded for their inability, sloth, greed, avarice and so on?

There is no such thing as "fair" in this world and trying to legislate "fairness" will not be successful, especially in the financial realm.

[william antley]

No, this is the essence of income redistribution. Actually, this phrase was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanc

Thank you for the info, I wasn't quite sure hence, "credited"

[Andy Schoen]

There is no such thing as "fair" in this world and trying to legislate "fairness" will not be successful, especially in the financial realm.

quite anti-Marxist, if I say so... :D

[coldcube]

"Redistribution of Wealth"

So we can say that we really don't know yet what this will mean.

My second question is, and I know this may seem far fetched but;

What is the chance of a revolution when Uncle SAM starts to take more from me (or you) and gives it to a person who is unwilling to accomplish what I (or you) have (speaking financially)?

Is there anyone on H-Talk who would feel that what we assume (the Robin Hood theory) is a sound way to help our country?

I would think that anyone who put his trust with the president elect would believe wholeheartedly in the Robin Hood theory, no?

[Andy Schoen]

"Redistribution of Wealth"

So we can say that we really don't know yet what this will mean.


It has been defined succinctly by Louis Blanc, and promulgated by many others, most notably Karl Marx.


It's very much like something Karl Marx is credited with stating. FROM EACH according to their abilities, TO EACH according to their needs.


If you understand the above, you understand "redistribution of wealth" ;)

[texas cooler]

During an interview with Charlie Gibson during campaigning, a statement was made that when taxes are raised, the gov't actually brings in less revenue. Obama's response to this was "It's not about raising more money, it's more of a fairness issue" (paraphrased)

Many of he self-made rich did not get to the top by stupidity. Money will be moved offshore and the "rich" will find new and creative ways to shelter their incomes.

[jpsmith1cm]

During an interview with Charlie Gibson during campaigning, a statement was made that when taxes are raised, the gov't actually brings in less revenue. Obama's response to this was "It's not about raising more money, it's more of a fairness issue" (paraphrased)

Many of he self-made rich did not get to the top by stupidity. Money will be moved offshore and the "rich" will find new and creative ways to shelter their incomes.

Funny, I have yet to see a defender of the redistribution policies here.

Many will defend Mr. Obama elsewhere, but when called out in this manner, they are hiding.

The problem is that this is the keystone of Obama's financial policy and what may turn an economic downturn into a full blown recession if implemented.


What is the chance of a revolution when Uncle SAM starts to take more from me (or you) and gives it to a person who is unwilling to accomplish what I (or you) have (speaking financially)?

Seriously, very, very slim. I know some people who will slow down working if taxed to heavily, namely myself. At this time, however, I do not see the revolution that I think you are referring to.

People today do not have the guts that our founders did.

[texas cooler]

At this time, however, I do not see the revolution that I think you are referring to.

People today do not have the guts that our founders did.

Additionally, we as a nation lead a relatively easy life. The "poor" today complain about their big screen TV, cost of booze and drugs, rising cost of smokes and poor cell phone reception.

The power brokers of this country are well entrenched with advance military weapons. A well-armed milita force would be no match against today's modern military. Only a massive revolt by the generals could force a change...too many people today have found out that they can vote themselves money and free gov't bennies.:mad:

[Pneuma]

I don't think anyone actually debates this subject correctly. Very rich people do not recieve the majority of their income in the form of a salary. A shareholder distribution is taxed at 15%. So smart "rich" business men will pay themselves a rather normal salary. Warren Buffet showed he pays less taxes than his secretary, he is a big Obama supporter. I might go google that and see what he was saying exactly but I htink his point wasn't that as a total he pays less taxes, just as a tax system, if you make income you pay a lot in taxes and have few shelters. Maybe making that part of the system more even is what Obama is calling making it fair.

Like that Joe the plumber thing, I alwasy laughed at Joe and how he feared abot going into business and gettin eaten up with taxes. Nobody said what a lot of people here know. All of a sudden your car is a tax deduction, gas and repairs, or just do the mileage deduction...cell phone? Company pays for it and it's a tax deduction. Vacations? Just tour some factory and call it a busines trip. Lunch...dinners....suddenly everyone in the family is a client and it's a business dinner. Now I am not advocating tax abuse, but that is the kind of stuff regular salaried or hourly Americans don;t see and politicians don't talk about. When you buy things and call them an expense your money is worth about 30 cents on the dollar more, because you spend it pre-tax.

[william antley]

I don't think anyone actually debates this subject correctly. Very rich people do not recieve the majority of their income in the form of a salary. A shareholder distribution is taxed at 15%. So smart "rich" business men will pay themselves a rather normal salary. Warren Buffet showed he pays less taxes than his secretary, he is a big Obama supporter. I might go google that and see what he was saying exactly but I htink his point wasn't that as a total he pays less taxes, just as a tax system, if you make income you pay a lot in taxes and have few shelters. Maybe making that part of the system more even is what Obama is calling making it fair.

Like that Joe the plumber thing, I alwasy laughed at Joe and how he feared abot going into business and gettin eaten up with taxes. Nobody said what a lot of people here know. All of a sudden your car is a tax deduction, gas and repairs, or just do the mileage deduction...cell phone? Company pays for it and it's a tax deduction. Vacations? Just tour some factory and call it a busines trip. Lunch...dinners....suddenly everyone in the family is a client and it's a business dinner. Now I am not advocating tax abuse, but that is the kind of stuff regular salaried or hourly Americans don;t see and politicians don't talk about. When you buy things and call them an expense your money is worth about 30 cents on the dollar more, because you spend it pre-tax.

How can you be so sure that "deductions" will still be allowed. That's a whole passel of money the feds can't get their grubby mitts into currently.

[The Doctor]

There are at least a couple, if not more, levels to redistribution as it will soon be taking shape.

1. is Obama's solution to reparations. This takes the form of the economic agenda he proposed on his own website (http://www.change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda). Notice the heavy emphasis on urban areas. (code for "spreading it around")


2. The general welfare clause will be stood on its head (in terms of who's paying), with props going out to BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES.
That last point ought not be missed by readers of this humble post. John McCain and Barack Obama only differ in degree of redistribution, and the factor of time in its implementation.
They both accept the confiscation of tax dollars and the movement of the efforts of those dollars toward interest groups on their respective sides.

What more needs to be said?

[tunnel_rat]

Fairness, huh???

Do you think we get a vote on what is "fair". LMAO...;)

That too will be decided for you. Get used to it.

[trane]

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2231/promisessmallcm9.jpg

[frostman]

This guy can explain it to you.

http://www.answers.com/topic/karl-marx

So can reading our current tax laws. Unless we get a flat tax in this country, we'll always have redistribution of wealth through our tax system. Though the world might end if the rich a-holes that have caused most of the problems we're having see their tax rate jump back up to 39%, that would be just awful. Having to buy the 28 foot yacht instead of the 35 footer..oh the horror.

[coldcube]

It has been defined succinctly by Louis Blanc, and promulgated by many others, most notably Karl Marx.



If you understand the above, you understand "redistribution of wealth" ;)

So would you say, "Look up socialism/communism, and that will answer your question"?

Is that indeed what someone who supported his campaign would say?

I still have not seen someone write, " I supported the president elect and let me explain what this means"

Here in Brooklyn NY they cheered in the streets, however most excited people from the 5 Boroughs, and some suburban people from Long Island have trouble explaining to me the issues he ran on or what they mean for us as Americans.

[coldcube]

I don't think anyone actually debates this subject correctly. Very rich people do not recieve the majority of their income in the form of a salary. A shareholder distribution is taxed at 15%. So smart "rich" business men will pay themselves a rather normal salary. Warren Buffet showed he pays less taxes than his secretary, he is a big Obama supporter. I might go google that and see what he was saying exactly but I htink his point wasn't that as a total he pays less taxes, just as a tax system, if you make income you pay a lot in taxes and have few shelters. Maybe making that part of the system more even is what Obama is calling making it fair.

Like that Joe the plumber thing, I alwasy laughed at Joe and how he feared abot going into business and gettin eaten up with taxes. Nobody said what a lot of people here know. All of a sudden your car is a tax deduction, gas and repairs, or just do the mileage deduction...cell phone? Company pays for it and it's a tax deduction. Vacations? Just tour some factory and call it a busines trip. Lunch...dinners....suddenly everyone in the family is a client and it's a business dinner. Now I am not advocating tax abuse, but that is the kind of stuff regular salaried or hourly Americans don;t see and politicians don't talk about. When you buy things and call them an expense your money is worth about 30 cents on the dollar more, because you spend it pre-tax.

As a business owner I can't expense more than I gross. In addition there are what we call "red flags" for Uncle Sam when you start to abuse the system.

I don't mind paying my taxes like every other hard working American. As long as the taxation is fair and just. If I am paying heavy fees in tax, it normally means I am making money.

I don't understand but have a feeling the "redistribution of wealth" plan may affect more than Warren Buffet.

I can't tell, but you seem to justify a Robin Hood Policy, "take from the those who have and give to those who have not". It sounds great until they come for what you have, than it doesn't sounds so great.

It would seem you believe it is OK to treat the successful in a different manner or with a separte rule system.

In this rule system the successfully take care of those who choose not to be. I don't think it is so much of a tax issue, but WHERE IS THE TAX MONEY GOING?

Does spread the wealth = welfare system?

[trane]

So would you say, "Look up socialism/communism, and that will answer your question"?

Is that indeed what someone who supported his campaign would say?

I still have not seen someone write, " I supported the president elect and let me explain what this means"

Here in Brooklyn NY they cheered in the streets, however most excited people from the 5 Boroughs, and some suburban people from Long Island have trouble explaining to me the issues he ran on or what they mean for us as Americans.

They know little about him or what he intends to do.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=222883

[jpsmith1cm]

As a business owner I can't expense more than I gross. In addition there are what we call "red flags" for Uncle Sam when you start to abuse the system.

I don't mind paying my taxes like every other hard working American. As long as the taxation is fair and just. If I am paying heavy fees in tax, it normally means I am making money.

I don't understand but have a feeling the "redistribution of wealth" plan may affect more than Warren Buffet.

I can't tell, but you seem to justify a Robin Hood Policy, "take from the those who have and give to those who have not". It sounds great until they come for what you have, than it doesn't sounds so great.

It would seem you believe it is OK to treat the successful in a different manner or with a separte rule system.

In this rule system the successfully take care of those who choose not to be. I don't think it is so much of a tax issue, but WHERE IS THE TAX MONEY GOING?

Does spread the wealth = welfare system?

In short, YES!!!

The government will take your money and give it to someone else.