• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?


  • Total voters
    95
Well yeah, progressive taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth. [/end thread]

no, it isn't.

add in a transfer of wealth( benefits, payments, subsidy) and you would be correct... but progressive taxation on its own is not wealth redistribution, it's merely a form of confiscation.
 
uhh.. yeah, I would consider it as wealth redistribution.... because it is.


it's the very definition of wealth redistribution.

Ahh, I see. So can cut the tax we just ... don't make any offsetting accounting to make things balance. If I said "We'll eliminate FICA" = Not a wealth transfer. Yeah, now we have massive unfunded spending, but I guess we just kick that can indefinitely down the road never paying it? What do you think happens when you reduce taxes on capital gains? Are we supposed to just increase the size of the the national debt with no intention to ever pay? If you have a plan for us to eventually pay it, you've transferred wealth from those who will eventually pay it to the rich guys you just gave a nice tax cut to. If you plan to have other taxpayers make up the lost tax revenue you've still taken money from others. How do you reduce taxes on the rich without ... doing something else that harms someone else? I guess it's only a "wealth redistribution" when the benefit isn't to the rich. If it goes to the rich, we'll call it "trickle down"!
 
but progressive taxation on its own is not wealth redistribution, it's merely a form of confiscation.

Yeah, confiscating from some... to give to others, that's REDISTRIBUTION! At least in my vocabulary.
 
do you care about my taxes?.... be honest.

does anyone here really care about my taxes?... be honest if you can.

Yes, actually being a very patriotic citizen I care very much about our citizens taxes. Are you a US citizen?

I actually do care about your safety, healthcare access, clean water and air, opportunity to earn a fair wage and taxes.
 
Ahh, I see. So can cut the tax we just ... don't make any offsetting accounting to make things balance.
kinda.... if you throw in a transfer.. it's redistrubtion
If I said "We'll eliminate FICA" = Not a wealth transfer.
correct, a tax cut is not a transfer.
Yeah, now we have massive unfunded spending, but I guess we just kick that can indefinitely down the road never paying it?
tax cuts are not spending items...outlays are.
What do you think happens when you reduce taxes on capital gains?
citizens pay less in capital gains taxes.
Are we supposed to just increase the size of the the national debt with no intention to ever pay?
cutting an outlay would be good advise, or maybe don't cut the tax in the first place.... but what you cannot do is conflate taxes and outlays, they are not the same
If you have a plan for us to eventually pay it, you've transferred wealth from those who will eventually pay it to the rich guys you just gave a nice tax cut to
no, you didn't transfer anything.. you confiscated less money from the rich folks, that's it.
If you plan to have other taxpayers make up the lost tax revenue you've still taken money from others.
by "make up lost tax revenue" i guess you mean a tax increase..correct?
How do you reduce taxes on the rich without ... doing something else that harms someone else?
interesting.. so paying less in taxes harms someone else... ok, but why did you only include the rich in on that?... would it not be true of anyone in any tax bracket?
I guess it's only a "wealth redistribution" when the benefit isn't to the rich. If it goes to the rich, we'll call it "trickle down"!
no, rich folks cab be beneficiaries of redistribution too... just not like you are arguing here.

listen, a rich guy ending up with more of his own money after tax day is not, nor will it ever be, wealth redistribution... it's his money. there has been no transfer... the government taking less of his money is not the same as giving the rich guy someones else's money.
 
This thread is pathetic.

We have a thread title that asks if you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth. So...what do people talk about? The definition of "redistribute wealth". What a waste of time.

Obama, himself, has stated that he wants to redistribute wealth. Why is there a question at all?


 
And more:



Even his Health Czar wants redistribution of wealth:

 
Now...if y'all insist on talking about the definition of "redistribute wealth", then I refer you to that great economist and thinker: Milton Freidman

 
Again what planet are you from? We are talking about tax increases on the wealthy...

Ah, I see, you don't mean "redistributing" wealth, you mean the current Republican party line as to what "wealth redistribution" is...
 
Sure he does. That gives the unproductive members of society (like community agitators) access to, and control over, wealth produced by others.

I like you signature choice - Abe babe kept slaves right?
 
It's called trickle down, don't ya know.


Ohio - Obama 50%
 
During Obama's 4 years, the elite and rich have become even wealthier and the poor have been rammed further into their graves

As for the great big American Middle class - well they have seen much of their wealth and security evaporate.

Under Obama, Wealth has been re-distributed alright - you betcha!
 
Check the poll results my left wing friend.

The poll results do not reflect the opinion that it is a bad thing. I voted yes but I believe it is a good thing to redistribute the wealth because 2 per cent of the population controls 98 per cent og the wealth. I think that is wrong, my friend.:2wave:
 
It's called trickle down, don't ya know.


Ohio - Obama 50%

Oh yeah? I haven't received one drop of it yet. Trickle down is remenicent of the dark ages when the lords of the manor would give grease dripping to the peasant serfs during the peasant/serff festivals
 
Last edited:
ANY government spending is wealth redistribution. When the State takes money from workers to spend it on a highway, it's redistributing wealth from the workers to the concrete and steel companies.

And the companies spend the money to pay their workers. It's called the economy.

Buying a highway which benefits the general public can be called an investment in infrastructure, just like canals, dams, bridges, and irrigation projects. Spending the money on useless projects like digging a hole and then filling it up again, or hiring more EPA administrators to think up more useless rules, is simply a waste of the money (
 
Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?


^Is this suppose to be some sort of sarcastic reverse psychology or something.??

Did you not know, that this was his platform from day one?

Thanks for waking up to reality though. I appreciate it.
 
Neither party's plan, or overall agenda, is good for the whole people. The Democrats want to piss the money away on 'social justice' and unworkable technologies, without getting spending under control. The Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy when we're running massive deficits and have an entirely unacceptable debt load, and too many of them support tax plans that are mathematically incapable of supporting the amount of government that any non-libertarian thinks we need.

Republicans recognize the need for more tax revenues, but they also recognize that raising tax rates is not the way to do that. The correct way to raise tax revenues is to get out of the way of the job creators and let people go back to work. Reagan cut tax rates and closed some loopholes, and tax revenues doubled during his term in office. (On the downside, he had a Dem congress that spent $1.65 for every new dollar that came in. We need a fiscally responsible (== Republican) congress also.)
 
[
Romney loves Costco so much, he bought 3.


QUOTE=4Horsemen;1060909028]Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?


^Is this suppose to be some sort of sarcastic reverse psychology or something.??

Did you not know, that this was his platform from day one?

Thanks for waking up to reality though. I appreciate it.[/QUOTE]
 
It absolutely is, when 'justice' has no basis in sound economic principles and will only contribute to greater hardship.

Before he passed away, my father told me a story about when he was a schoolboy. The schools were holding fundraisers, gathering up nickels and dimes, in order to free the Christian slaves in the Sudan. The idea was, they'd take this money into Africa and buy as many slaves as they could and set them free. They discontinued this program in short order when they discovered that the number of slave raids and slaves taken had more than tripled almost overnight-- it turns out the slavers liked good American money.

Read in the news recently that some townships are considering 'solving' the housing crisis through eminent domain: people in underwater houses would apply for assistance, and the government would use eminent domain to seize the property from the bank-- at current market value-- and sell it back to the homeowner at a reduced rate. I'll leave it to your imagination what this is going to do to the housing market if it ever actually happens.

The problem with 'social justice' is that it is applying moral principles to amoral systems. The economy isn't a social institution, it's the jungle and the law of the jungle can not be denied; panthers that refuse to eat bunny rabbits starve.



Sure. Hell, I've seen studies that say every dollar we put in the public schools is worth three dollars of tax revenue. I'm not opposed to investing in infrastructure and education and human services-- I'm just opposed to the typically idiotic left-wing way of screwing those things up.

Excellent post! I remember that situation in the Sudan, and your analogy is right on target! Thank you... :applaud
 
Again, I respectfully disagree. It's never bad policy to educate our youth. It's TERRIBLE to turn the education of our youth over to corporate interests.

Agreed. The only thing worse is to turn the education of our youth over to an unaccountable teachers union which has no interest other than the welfare of its members and the kids can go hang. At least the corporate interests can be held accountable...
 
Numbers exactly or it did not happen.

I earned 176,800 and paid 1700 less in taxes and was able to keep my two college sones on my PRIVATE policy directly to ACA.

"

HCR has already saved hundreds of millions in medicare fraud ... RACS!

The Affordable Care Act: New Tools to Fight Fraud, Strengthen Medicare and Protect Taxpayer Dollars

I hate to enable your ignorance, but my parent's salaries are none of your business. And none of mine either apparently since they won't tell me. They did tell me though that they had to pay more taxes while Obama held office than they did in previous years. I can tell you though that their combined income is probably close to yours.
 
Republicans recognize the need for more tax revenues, but they also recognize that raising tax rates is not the way to do that. The correct way to raise tax revenues is to get out of the way of the job creators and let people go back to work. Reagan cut tax rates and closed some loopholes, and tax revenues doubled during his term in office. (On the downside, he had a Dem congress that spent $1.65 for every new dollar that came in. We need a fiscally responsible (== Republican) congress also.)

don't blame it all on the dems. it takes two to tango.
 
Neither party's plan, or overall agenda, is good for the whole people. The Democrats want to piss the money away on 'social justice' and unworkable technologies, without getting spending under control. The Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy when we're running massive deficits and have an entirely unacceptable debt load, and too many of them support tax plans that are mathematically incapable of supporting the amount of government that any non-libertarian thinks we need.

You forgot to mention the sick ass unpaid for wars we borrow money for.
 
Back
Top Bottom