Redistribution of Wealth

[BT]

Taking property from one person at the point of a gun, no matter the justification, for another's use is a mugging.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Taking property from one person at the point of a gun, no matter the justification, for another's use is a mugging.


==========================================
Do you consider paying the IRS to be armed robbery?

[Brassmask]

Taking property from one person at the point of a gun, no matter the justification, for another's use is a mugging.

So, how can you possibly justify driving on roads that were built with other peoples' and your money?  How can you possibly pay Walmart's low, low prices knowing they are so low because of Walmart's bargaining power?

Maybe tomorrow, you should go ahead and start hiring your own army, sherriff's patrol and garbage disposal system since you are soooooo tired of being MUGGED at the point of a gun for others' benefit.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again the top 1% of the population owns 38% of all the wealth. This is a higher proportion than the top 1% of any other developed nation. The US ranks more with Mexico and Portugal in this respect.

This is NOT a healthy thing for a country. A middle-class country is by definition, a stable and prosperous one. A country that has a highly skewed distribution tends to be unstable, corrupt and poor.

Perhaps BT and his billionaire buddies think taxes are like getting mugged, but when the income gets too skewed, what you have is revolution, and then you have kidnappings and murders and the sort of stuff that has plagued Colombia since 1948: a constant, unending civil war which benefits no one.

Progressive taxes are the one way that those who have benefited far beyond their labors can pay for their good luck. And no, it is not talent that allows louts like Carl Icahn and Donald Trump to get ahead. Mostly it is having been born rich and then gotten lucky. And there are hundreds more guys like Trump than there are like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

People live better, live longer and enjoy life more in places like Denmark, Sweden and Finland than in the US. Swedes, Danes and Finns are luckily not the braggarts that some Americans are, and have never sought to spread their governmental systems by force abroad. It's not like the US has been at all that successful at it, either. Observe how long it took Taiwan, South Korea and the Philipines to become democratic.

[kimba1]

uhm
shouldn`t america spend alittle energy making money?
all this talk about spreading the weath and fixing our economy.
I don`t hear about puting money into the country.
making goods and services for other countris to increase the flow of money into america.
isn`t this important?

[Plane]

When that guy returns to that restraunt , he will learn the real consequence of redistribution.

===========================================
So you actually believe that this entire scene with the stiffed waiter and the homeless guy actually happened?

It's pretty obvious that it is just a dumb story to make a rather absurd point.

If it hypotheticly happened then he will hypothetically learn what hypotheticaly stiffed waiters do to their hypotheticaly skinflint patrons.

Do you think it impossible that this redistribution actually happened?

[kimba1]

but wouldn`t it be more accurate that the waiter gets a $1 tip and the homeless guy gets $1 and the admin that gets the rest of that money will be angry those two got too much money?

[Plane]

but wouldn`t it be more accurate that the waiter gets a $1 tip and the homeless guy gets $1 and the admin that gets the rest of that money will be angry those two got too much money?

Frankly I think that the waiter is unlikely to change his vote just because a McCain supporter stiffed him.

That panhandler might tho.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the old fashioned way to get Pauls support.

Unfortuneately , Peter ther waiter is a productive hard working person , produceing value with his effort. Paul has nothing further to give you after you have bought his vote.

[Xavier_Onassis]

shouldn`t america spend alittle energy making money?
all this talk about spreading the weath and fixing our economy.
I don`t hear about puting money into the country.
making goods and services for other countris to increase the flow of money into america.
isn`t this important?

Of course. Most people make far money from being productive than they ever get from the government.
I think Obama's idea of taking away tax breaks of companies that move jobs offshore, and rewarding those who create jobs within the US is more important than tax policy.

What Obama has advocated is basically going back to the tax base we had in the Olebush years, and is no more Socialist than that.

[Plane]

shouldn`t america spend alittle energy making money?
all this talk about spreading the weath and fixing our economy.
I don`t hear about puting money into the country.
making goods and services for other countris to increase the flow of money into america.
isn`t this important?

Of course. Most people make far money from being productive than they ever get from the government.
I think Obama's idea of taking away tax breaks of companies that move jobs offshore, and rewarding those who create jobs within the US is more important than tax policy.

What Obama has advocated is basically going back to the tax base we had in the Olebush years, and is no more Socialist than that.

Olbush lost an election for allowing that tax increase , if he had vetoed it he would have had four more of his own.

Raising taxes on our companys doesn't give the overseas company a compeditive advantage? If keeping jobs here rather than there is important then we don't want to raise taxes .

[kimba1]

i don`t recall any business stating taxes are are reason jobs are outsourced overseas.

[Plane]

i don`t recall any business stating taxes are are reason jobs are outsourced overseas.

Oh?

I will look for that later , but on a general principal , how would higher taxes here , be any advantage to companys here that had to pay them?

How would employees paying high taxes be an advantage to a company that had a choiice to pay employees in a lower tax environment instead?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Olbush lost an election for allowing that tax increase , if he had vetoed it he would have had four more of his own.

Raising taxes on our companys doesn't give the overseas company a compeditive advantage? If keeping jobs here rather than there is important then we don't want to raise taxes .

====================================================
When you talk about companies in other countries, you are often talking about competing with companies that pay their employees four dollars a day. What the US needs to do is to make products that cannot be made competitively abroad because we have the technology and patents and they don't.

If they lower taxes on US companies, there is absolutely no guarantee that the decrease in taxes will be passed on to the consumers at all.

Olebush claimed that his new taxes were "user fees" or some other deceptive thing of that nature. He refused to admit that they were actually new taxes. His flaw was in saying "Read my lips, No New Taxes", when he knew damned well that he would in fact have to raise taxes.


Stanley Tool Co. has moved its corporate headquarters to Bermuda. Of course, nearly all the work done to run the company is done in the US, but corporate taxes go to Bermuda, which does not seem to have any corporate taxes at all. Being as Bermuda has a teensy population, the property taxes and other taxes are enough to make them welcome there. Forget that Bermuda has no pool of corporate executives, or even an actual market for Stanley Tools.

How can the US compete with that? By treating Stanley Tools as a foreign company, for starters.

[kimba1]

I don`t know if it good for anybody,but if it happens the government better show some results.
it`s onething to pay taxes it`s another to not see pothole being fixed or crime still rising.
here in s.f. were constantly getting fee increases and taxes ,but crime still goes up and potholes untouched.
only recently we got a big gang bust by I.C.E.(a federal angecy)not SFPD and one of the board of supervisor had the nerve to complain of excessive force.
all this money and none has resulted in lowering crime.

[Plane]

Olbush lost an election for allowing that tax increase , if he had vetoed it he would have had four more of his own.

Raising taxes on our companys doesn't give the overseas company a compeditive advantage? If keeping jobs here rather than there is important then we don't want to raise taxes .

====================================================
When you talk about companies in other countries, you are often talking about competing with companies that pay their employees four dollars a day. What the US needs to do is to make products that cannot be made competitively abroad because we have the technology and patents and they don't.

If they lower taxes on US companies, there is absolutely no guarantee that the decrease in taxes will be passed on to the consumers at all.

Olebush claimed that his new taxes were "user fees" or some other deceptive thing of that nature. He refused to admit that they were actually new taxes. His flaw was in saying "Read my lips, No New Taxes", when he knew damned well that he would in fact have to raise taxes.


Stanley Tool Co. has moved its corporate headquarters to Bermuda. Of course, nearly all the work done to run the company is done in the US, but corporate taxes go to Bermuda, which does not seem to have any corporate taxes at all. Being as Bermuda has a teensy population, the property taxes and other taxes are enough to make them welcome there. Forget that Bermuda has no pool of corporate executives, or even an actual market for Stanley Tools.

How can the US compete with that? By treating Stanley Tools as a foreign company, for starters.

So we raise the hurdles?

The taxes are not the only factor , but they do not help keep jobs in the USA.