Let's Redistribute Some Wealth [W:131]

[US Conservative]

Its all Greek to me, I mean Bernie.

Apparently despite Obamacare, we need more healthcare programs too. :lol:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'd like to present an alternative to targeting people who have more.

You see, wealth redistribution doesn't actually solves the problems that we poor people face. All it does is jsut reshuffle a deck of cards.

The biggest problem we race is the rising cost of goods and services.

For example, at Wall mart just two months ago, they raised the prices of eggs by about roughly three dollars, at least in my area.

In short, is hard for many people to afford to buy a nine dollar carton of eggs, and other similarly high prices.
personally, i am considering that that is the real problem we need to resolve in some equitable way that helps everyone.

But, i have no clue of what that could be.

For you see, wealth redistribution is actually pretty much rendered moot if only a few people can afford to buy goods.

"I'm going to ignore the fact that laying hens were killed off to stop the spread of disease, not understand that it is a very simple supply issue, and attribute the rise in egg prices to inflation.....which is running at historic lows"

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well then if you really care about the poor (and anyone with money) shouldnt the left be advocating for fiscal responsibility to minimize inflation?

Obviously, minimizing inflation is not even half the battle, nor is having steadily-increasing wages. In addition to these is to make sure that the degree of income inequality is not too high (too great an inequality is NEVER good for a nation's economy). Even the ancient Greeks knew this!

“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”
–Plutarch
ancient Greek biographer (c. 46 – 120 CE)

Compare what Plutarch said to what FDR said in my signature below - they are related, sir. If the imbalance is too great, if the poor are too poor, such is indeed the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well then if you really care about the poor (and anyone with money) shouldnt the left be advocating for fiscal responsibility to minimize inflation?

You mean like the Republicans when they protected the tax breaks that corporations get for shipping our factories and jobs overseas? And the subsidies so many rich-assed farmers get? I got stories about that one. And then there's how our hedge fund managers get their income taxed at the capital gains rate. And then there's the venture capitalists who buy a poorly-performing company, liquidate it, fire all the workers, and then the workers get castigated and ridiculed for not getting jobs on their own. And then there's the congressmen who DEMAND that we build more tanks for our Army even though the Army brass says they don't want them and don't need them. I could go on and on and on, but that's enough for now.

In other words, y'all should be careful when throwing those rocks at us - 'cause y'all are indeed living inside a glass house. Besides, all I gotta do is point out how, when Obama first took over, we were losing over a half million jobs per month...whereas now, we're still in the middle of the longest period of private-sector job growth in our nation's history. NO other president can say that! And that's just one more reason why I say that if Obama'd had an (R) behind his name, y'all would be pushing to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore. But since he's got that (D), well, THAT means that he can't do anything right ever no matter what!

 

[US Conservative]

You mean like the Republicans when they protected the tax breaks that corporations get for shipping our factories and jobs overseas? And the subsidies so many rich-assed farmers get? I got stories about that one. And then there's how our hedge fund managers get their income taxed at the capital gains rate. And then there's the venture capitalists who buy a poorly-performing company, liquidate it, fire all the workers, and then the workers get castigated and ridiculed for not getting jobs on their own. And then there's the congressmen who DEMAND that we build more tanks for our Army even though the Army brass says they don't want them and don't need them. I could go on and on and on, but that's enough for now.

In other words, y'all should be careful when throwing those rocks at us - 'cause y'all are indeed living inside a glass house. Besides, all I gotta do is point out how, when Obama first took over, we were losing over a half million jobs per month...whereas now, we're still in the middle of the longest period of private-sector job growth in our nation's history. NO other president can say that! And that's just one more reason why I say that if Obama'd had an (R) behind his name, y'all would be pushing to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore. But since he's got that (D), well, THAT means that he can't do anything right ever no matter what!

Your frustration with the current economic climate will not help your case. Learn how things work. I find so often that lefties know very little about these factors.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Well then if you really care about the poor (and anyone with money) shouldnt the left be advocating for fiscal responsibility to minimize inflation?

If inflation gets anymore "minimized", we will be deflationary.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Well then if you really care about the poor (and anyone with money) shouldnt the left be advocating for fiscal responsibility to minimize inflation?

Your frustration with the current economic climate will not help your case. Learn how things work. I find so often that lefties know very little about these factors.

I lol'ed.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Your frustration with the current economic climate will not help your case. Learn how things work. I find so often that lefties know very little about these factors.

Methinks you're suffering from a bit of projection there, guy, because I am not at all frustrated with the current economic climate - we ARE still in the middle of the longest sustained period of private-sector job growth in our nations history. Your boys would LOVE to be able to have a bragging point like that...but they don't.

And since we lefties "don't know how things work", when was it we had our last budget surplus, hm? And the one before that? It's been shown that yes, our economy DOES do generally better under Democrats than under Republicans. I remember how the GOPers were so doggone sure that Clinton was going to ruin the economy...but the opposite happened. The GOPers said the same thing about Obama, and made him face the greatest level of obstruction of ANY president since the Civil War...and he STILL mostly got our economy back on track.

And y'all? Y'all got nothing. Nothing but rhetoric, that is.

 

[Ancient Herald]

just wait until some people learn about what fiat (not the car) money is.

 

[US Conservative]

Methinks you're suffering from a bit of projection there, guy, because I am not at all frustrated with the current economic climate - we ARE still in the middle of the longest sustained period of private-sector job growth in our nations history. Your boys would LOVE to be able to have a bragging point like that...but they don't.

And since we lefties "don't know how things work", when was it we had our last budget surplus, hm? And the one before that? It's been shown that yes, our economy DOES do generally better under Democrats than under Republicans. I remember how the GOPers were so doggone sure that Clinton was going to ruin the economy...but the opposite happened. The GOPers said the same thing about Obama, and made him face the greatest level of obstruction of ANY president since the Civil War...and he STILL mostly got our economy back on track.

And y'all? Y'all got nothing. Nothing but rhetoric, that is.

This must explain why the left was decimated in the last mid terms...you know-because the economy is doing so well.

 

[Eric7216]

What has happened to our world which now seems to believe that money is everything and the only thing? There is so much more in life than money. Bob Dylan wrote "money doesn't talk but swears".
Take 5 people. One enjoys education and works hard to gain knowledge. The second wants peace and serenity and works hard to achieve that. The third likes sex and devotes his energies on that. The fourth like athletes and builds up his body and fitness. And the fifth likes money so he devotes his time and efforts to that. All 5 achieve success in their area of pursuit.
Yet you are only concerned about the fifth person who pursued wealth? Shouldn't all 5 distribute the fruits of their efforts? (If that were possible.)

People pursue their own interests in life. I don't envy those who are smarter, more athletic, have a better sex life, or have more inner peace. Why should I worry about those who have more income?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

just wait until some people learn about what fiat (not the car) money is.

Please, by all means....tell us all about it...I mean really, tell us everything you know about the subject.

 

[Texmex]

We will make strides toward closing the huge gaps in the wealth distribution problem.

The conservatives and libertarians will fight it all the way.

They will lose...and they, like all of us, will be the better for their loss.

Make no mistake...the problem has to be handled.

I agree, and it will be handled. The conservatives will scream, kick and threaten, but they will comply in the end.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

This must explain why the left was decimated in the last mid terms...you know-because the economy is doing so well.

Just like we were "shellacked" in the 2010 midterms too, right? But then what happened in 2012? Same thing that will happen in 2016.

And afterwards, just as in 2012, for about two months afterwards the GOP cognoscenti will proclaim that the GOP must try to reach out and attract minorities...but once 2017 rolls around, it'll be back to the old "we're-under-invasion-by-the-illegals-and-the-minorities-never-want-to-get-a-job" trope.

Mark my words.

 

[US Conservative]

Just like we were "shellacked" in the 2010 midterms too, right? But then what happened in 2012? Same thing that will happen in 2016.

And afterwards, just as in 2012, for about two months afterwards the GOP cognoscenti will proclaim that the GOP must try to reach out and attract minorities...but once 2017 rolls around, it'll be back to the old "we're-under-invasion-by-the-illegals-and-the-minorities-never-want-to-get-a-job" trope.

Mark my words.

Yes, we much reach out to those who vote 80% democrat. Sounds like the McCain and Romney approach.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Yes, we much reach out to those who vote 80% democrat. Sounds like the McCain and Romney approach.

i refuse to vote democrat or republican. You're all full of nonsense.

 

[sookster]

First of all, both Bernie and Trump have talked about taxing derivatives. That is a sector of Wallstreet that is making bank but isn't taxed. Second, people with 75k a year wouldn't be touched. Bernie, who talks about it the most, is saying the top 1 to top 10th percent. I don't know what that entails, but I am betting multi millions a year. I know the top 10th percent made over 50 billion dollars one year. That's where the taxes are going. People in the middle class won't be touched, simply because that would defeat the purpose.

 

[NonoBadDog]

i'd like to take a little bit of time to see how this wealth redistribution works So let's spread some around, shall we?

For our example let's take two people.

person 1 is making $75,000 a year, before redistribution.

Person 2 is making $25,000 a year.

So a fair wealth redistribution would be to take those salaries, and add them together, for a total of $100,000.

The government gets to take say ten percent of it. Which would be $10,000.

Distributing the money in a fair and equitable manner, each person will now get $45,000. It'ds adrop for the higher wage income earner, but a huge boost to the lower wage income earner, which increases the quality of his, or her, life.

It sounds really fair, doesn't it?

But here's the thing. The government gets a ten percent fee for running things, making sure that the people are treated in a fair manner, and get their fair and equal share.

And $10,000 doesn't sound too bad of a deal, right?

But, if you have a society with say, 100 people. Well, that is 100 x $10,000, which comes out to a grand total of $1,000,000. And that is while each person is making $45,000 a year.

And make no mistake, the government does need that money to make sure everyone has their fair and equal share. For without the government to enable this system, most people will just not willingly donate their salary to enable a fair and equal share.

And that's why you need the government. For you can not have fair and equal sharing of money without it.


So, this all sounds like it's a fair system to me.

Does this sound fair to you?

It will to some people but reality is that it will kill motivation.

 

[274ina]

i'd like to take a little bit of time to see how this wealth redistribution works So let's spread some around, shall we?

For our example let's take two people.

person 1 is making $75,000 a year, before redistribution.

Person 2 is making $25,000 a year.

So a fair wealth redistribution would be to take those salaries, and add them together, for a total of $100,000.

The government gets to take say ten percent of it. Which would be $10,000.

Distributing the money in a fair and equitable manner, each person will now get $45,000. It'ds adrop for the higher wage income earner, but a huge boost to the lower wage income earner, which increases the quality of his, or her, life.

It sounds really fair, doesn't it?

But here's the thing. The government gets a ten percent fee for running things, making sure that the people are treated in a fair manner, and get their fair and equal share.

And $10,000 doesn't sound too bad of a deal, right?

But, if you have a society with say, 100 people. Well, that is 100 x $10,000, which comes out to a grand total of $1,000,000. And that is while each person is making $45,000 a year.

And make no mistake, the government does need that money to make sure everyone has their fair and equal share. For without the government to enable this system, most people will just not willingly donate their salary to enable a fair and equal share.

And that's why you need the government. For you can not have fair and equal sharing of money without it.


So, this all sounds like it's a fair system to me.

Does this sound fair to you?

Yup. But you see its only a tiny middle class example designed to produce envy, to protect the mega rich. The real example is the leeches behind every corporation making $350 million a year from people working for ( by force) $18k year.

 

[Rentoc]

Methinks you're suffering from a bit of projection there, guy, because I am not at all frustrated with the current economic climate - we ARE still in the middle of the longest sustained period of private-sector job growth in our nations history. Your boys would LOVE to be able to have a bragging point like that...but they don't.

And since we lefties "don't know how things work", when was it we had our last budget surplus, hm? And the one before that? It's been shown that yes, our economy DOES do generally better under Democrats than under Republicans. I remember how the GOPers were so doggone sure that Clinton was going to ruin the economy...but the opposite happened. The GOPers said the same thing about Obama, and made him face the greatest level of obstruction of ANY president since the Civil War...and he STILL mostly got our economy back on track.

And y'all? Y'all got nothing. Nothing but rhetoric, that is.

It's not the longest is history. It's also very natural after all the job losses after 2008/09. Reagan and Clinton both had longer streaks that had a one month blip. As for a budget surplus let's not forget that the Republicans were actually in charge of the purse when that surplus occurred.

Neither party is doing anything now, let's be honest. They are both pandering to their "base". The Dems want to tax the rich more so they can claim that everyone is paying "their fair share" and the Repubs want to shelter the rich from paying more. The Dems want to continue the hand outs to the poor and the Repubs want to keep on handing it to Corporations.

Like I have said on several threads, We the People need to fire everyone of them for the next 2 or 3 House/Senate election cycles and show them that we are tired of business as usual. We also need to demand that there be term limits for the House and Senate created.

 

[gdgyva]

A good mechanic in worth their weight in gold. I am not kidding.

Interesting you mention this, because I was talking with my mechanic earlier this week. I asked him if he missed working on older cars. He said he still gets older cars because more and more younger mechanics aren't really proficient at things like carbs, and he still is. His generation is retiring and his skills are becoming more and more in demand.

i charge my customers over $ 110.00 an hour book time for labor

i pay on average $ 28-30 to the techs (some less, a few more)

i average right at 30% gross on parts sales that go with that labor

so yeah...they are worth their weight in gold

now i also have invested millions in the shop....lifts, computers, tools, etc

and my customers keep coming back, year after year....

we may charge a bunch, but we guarantee the service, we make the service as painless as possible, and my people are top notch

there is truth in the adage, you get what you pay for

 

[ttwtt78640]

Methinks you're suffering from a bit of projection there, guy, because I am not at all frustrated with the current economic climate - we ARE still in the middle of the longest sustained period of private-sector job growth in our nations history. Your boys would LOVE to be able to have a bragging point like that...but they don't.

And since we lefties "don't know how things work", when was it we had our last budget surplus, hm? And the one before that? It's been shown that yes, our economy DOES do generally better under Democrats than under Republicans. I remember how the GOPers were so doggone sure that Clinton was going to ruin the economy...but the opposite happened. The GOPers said the same thing about Obama, and made him face the greatest level of obstruction of ANY president since the Civil War...and he STILL mostly got our economy back on track.

And y'all? Y'all got nothing. Nothing but rhetoric, that is.

Correlation is not causation. What amazing Obama economic policy was most responsible for this historic miracle?

 

[betuadollar]

F&L has spend years studying the situation, as have I.

My views have been formed after years of reading, and examining whats out there. You can find Smith, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Marx, Keynes, etc online for free if you do enough digging. Heres a teaser... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOMksnSaAJ4

I don't expect you to come up with an answer overnight, btw-these things have taken centuries to be discovered, and its evolving even still.

This might be more doable-this series came out in the late 70's/early 80's and is excellent. Just watch, just listen. Tell me what you think.

I like Milton. I've actually watched that series.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are mistaking income with wealth. We do a good job of taxing income with our tax code (excepting carried interest) but a poor job taxing wealth. There should be an annual tax on wealth.

Many advocate for a "wealth" tax yet always seem to want it to apply only to those with more than (or in a different form from) their own wealth. The fact that a family farm or business has assets worth over $X has little (if any) bearing on its income. Taxes must be payable out of current income or they may well require liquidation of the very assets that allow for that income.

 

[fmw]

"Let's Redistribute Some Wealth"

Indeed, we have spent decades sending our wealth to Japan, Korea, China, Mexico and other countries. It is definitely time to start reversing that distribution. By the way, money should be earned, not distributed.