The 75 yes votes are persons on the receiving end; SSD, SS (career welfare ) Medicaid, etc. The work ethic is in the process of being destroyed in this once great work a day Nation.
Let's ask first why should wealth be redistributed? Wealth is EARNED - it is not given, it is not a right, it is not an entitlement, it is not a responsibility of government to control or pretend to redistribute (remember, government is overhead - what it takes in does not go back out), nor is it a basic human characteristic. It is not unfair for Joe to have earned more than Sam, or for Mary to have saved more than Jane, etc... It IS unfair for someone to have invested in higher education, worked his/her way into a decent paying job, and invested in a home and property only to have government claim 50% of the fruits of his/her labor and continually impose further punishment for every improvement made to his/her property.
What IS fair is providing equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for equally capable workers, and freedom of choice on how hard, how long, and for how much every citizen wants to work to acquire wealth.
If you really want to understand why Libertarianism and/or Conservatism are not what most consider mainstream the poll cited in the article is a clear indicator.
The 52% who favor redistribution are indicative of why our major cities in this country have been locked under liberal democrat control since the 1930's,
It is human nature to accept something for nothing, it is not difficult at all to foster envy toward someone who has more, whether they worked for it and/or earned it doesn't matter.
Ironically, you will find that many who voted yes have indeed earned their own way, but are under the misguided perception that charity should emanate from government. (Just a hunch based on previous comments over the last few years on here)
What made the United States different over the years was essentially personal responsibility to succeed and care for your own, couple with generous charity when necessary, unfortunately, the 20th Century saw voluntary charity gradually replaced with government sponsored entitlement, and the fact is there is no way to support that government sponsored entitlement without wealth distribution. Add the gradual reduction in volunteer charity and the result is general apathy (Can we say Europe)
What those who support Government Sponsored Entitlement fail to realize, is that with that comes an abdication of small liberties which gradually add up control of a populace by a ruling elite.
I always get a chuckle when the most liberal among us call conservatives sheep for voicing the more conservative approach, all the while lining people up at the public trough for another feeding.
I love this "notion" like TP Hunt has that there is any gain for those collecting any kind of assistance. If taxes go up on the rich it doesnt give the poor anything. The distribution is from the people to the Govt. The welfare that should be removed is the retirement and health care that Higher Govt people get (Senators, Representatives, and Up...)They all get paid well and have other jobs that pay well too. The Govt waste needs to be eliminated. Thats where the real, redistribution goes to.....
There will always be a need for some sort of welfare, i.e. permanently disabled, mentally ill, etc. I for one do not consider that in itself wealth redistribution. It is the excess of this for political gain which becomes wealth distribution.
What Kyle is referring to isn't what I call redistribution of wealth in the frame of this debate although it is a problem of equal or greater magnitude, that is excessive compensation for services performed by elected and bureaucratic government employees.
Redistribution of wealth is taking the earned money of a group or individual, and by taxation giving a portion of that money to another group of lessor income simply because you can. Ironically, it is the elected and bureaucratic government employees that are receiving what might be excessive compensation to that plan and redistribute the wealth of some to others.
Allow me to keep what I expend in taxes and I'll keep my own wealth. I could've been financially independent already if my taxes were even half of what they have been over the past 32 years. That's probably the real issue, though. Governments have a vested interest in you NOT becoming financially independent.
This really is a bogus question. ...Mainly because the assumption arises that the ambitious are being penalized, forced to underwrite under-achievers. This buzz-phrase, redistribution of wealth, needs to be given a reality-check. Despite the possibility that anecdotal evidence reveals a burgeoning class of welfare cheats and fraudulent medicaid patients who are ripping off hardworking Americans, the vast majority of the fraud in this nation is perpetrated by doctors, pharmacists and other providers- double-billing and price-gouging. But that isn't even the heart of the controversy...
Apparently, the only redistribution of wealth that this forum objects to is that which benefits the poor, the aged and infirm. That's a pretty callous position.
No one has complained about trillions of dollars safely immune to taxation, housed in foreign banks; no one has complained about pharmaceutical companies triple-dipping: being subsidized for R & D, jacking up domestic prices and getting a tax deferral on profits; no one complained about corporations downsizing and shipping jobs to third-world countries while still enjoying a lower tax-rate than average Americans; no one complained about IDAs underwriting business ventures that shield corporations from tax responsibility for years, businesses that put other businesses out of business, create minimal job opportunities while paying slave-wages. No one complained about banks that collapsed the economy and were rewarded with billions in bailouts, used to pad CEO salaries and bonuses.
The same jokers that become indignant when someone else plays the so-called "race card," are never shy about playing the "welfare card." It's BS. You all now it. Yet you throw it out there anyway.
Anyone who wants to complain about wasted money going to undeserving hucksters needs to look at the top of the heap- not the bottom.
The worst example of redistribution is the inheritance tax. Someone works hard, invests well and makes money. That money, earned income, interest income or dividend income, with few exceptions like government bonds, is all taxed,
Then in a money grab, the government taxes it again just because the guy died.
It's always easy to throw in the populous argument on both sides of the issue isn't CM?
The true problem is the tax code in itself, it isn't about revenue at all, it is about power and control from above. It might surprise you that I agree with most of your points on this, but I will say this
If government should support welfare for the poor and infirmed, it should be local and state government NOT the federal government, the bulk of our taxes should be collected and spent by states and locals, NOT the federal government as it is now.
C.M., your list of complaints of "nobody ever complains about" ... simply not true. Libertarians complain about all those things as well all of the time.
And the noxious ideas of "wealth inequality" and "wealth distribution" get spread about all the time "progressive" circles. Just romp through Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and you'll find people complaining about those evil rich people. So there's nothing bogus about the question at all.
The video below, a bit of redistributionist propaganda, has more than five million views.
Howard, I was reflecting on the comments to the poll question on YOUR site. I didn't use the word, "evil." You did. The problem boils down to this: if we give breaks to corporations and wealthy; someone else has to pay that share of expenses. The dubious answer is 'cut expenses.' This is circular logic. The benefits shared by all- schools, law enforcement, infrastructure development, etc. are not stagnant costs. They, like everything else, cost more, progressively. So deferring taxes on those who profit from public funded programs places an even greater burden on private citizens. ...While at the same time the programs cut are those intended to mitigate disparities between cost of living and earnings. The middle-class and poor are doubly penalized. The wealth disparities are not the issue. The burden of tax disparities vis-a-vis tax revenue benefit is the issue. One example: the deferrals and grants given to corporations to encourage development; if these included a quid pro quo requiring X number of jobs for X amount of tax breaks or grants- that would be reasonable and worth the expenditure of public money. However, as we all know, that is not the case.
CM, Your assertion that "The benefits shared by all- schools, law enforcement, infrastructure development," has absolutely NOTHING to do the distribution of wealth, what you stated are government services.
That is not at all what this thread or the poll that inspired it were even remotely talking about
This poll is not about tax rates or tax breaks. It's about how some people think that having too much money is not "fair". That To them, does not matter if the money was earned or inherited, it just is not fair. So they want the government to take away what they feel is too much, and give it to others.
We have a rich history as a charitable people in this country. There was a time prior to FDR starting us down the slippery slope of social democratic thinking that the redistribution of wealth came primarily in the form of private charitable giving. Churches, communities, fraternal organizations, neighbors, families and private agencies somehow managed to care for their neighbors in times of need. There was the full expectation that assistance would be temporary and not become a way of life. As time passed, our state and federal governments continued to add entitlement program after entitlement program, all designed to help the poor, elderly and/or disabled, but resulting primarily in higher taxes and exponentially increasing budget deficits. People became dependent upon government handouts while poverty and dependence upon the government became for some, a multi generational way of life. Savvy politicians quickly found that a dependent populace could be turned into a compliant voter base. Then we were off to the races. Spin the clock ahead to 2013 and we find more public entitlement programs than ever before in the history of our country. Politicians and media ever spinning the story that you must be a cruel, heartless libertarian or conservative if you even question the train wreck of social democracy. Take a look at the states of California and New York, our sparkling examples of wealth redistribution. California, going bankrupt. New York, can't attract business even with tax abatement bribes. These are our shinning examples. Both dismal failures. If taxes and government entitlement programs were really the answer to helping our neighbors, wouldn't it have worked by now? Wouldn't we have seen some decrease in the dependent populace? Wouldn't New York and California be truly prosperous, booming economies? We do more harm than good by putting government in charge of redistributing wealth through the power of taxation. We are not selfish people when we point out that the social democratic agenda has failed. We are a compassionate, caring people with an obligation to speak the truth.
Jim your statement....Savvy politicians quickly found that a dependent populace could be turned into a compliant voter base. ........breaks it down to exactly the problem... The government should get rid of all tax breaks and treat us all equally when it come to taxation ..Tax all as we do with sales tax..Pay it when you spend it..No more write offs ,no more credits.No rebate checks..
I would say that, not all wealthy people earned their wealth. There are many out there who have cheated and endangered society in obtaining their wealth. There are those who claim their talent is worth millions i.e. sport athletes and actors/actresses. It is one thing to earn your wealth because of what you contribute to society but, when you self proclaim your worth or when you cheat or endanger society it is not earned, it is taken. Unfortunately, we as society feed into the notion that, acting, sports, reality TV is worth the billions we spend to see such. Even a business savvy person doesn’t always earn their wealth fairly.
Yes, politicians are some that cheat society. For example; they give themselves raises and they can’t work out a budget on time, they have become increasingly self serving for the past several decades. I can actually go on and on about their cheating of society. However, the government has always been good at causing fighting between classes to redirect the spotlight from their corruption. Let’s not forgets they are the ones who established the loop holes, exemptions, rules/regulations and supported/granted many of the wealthy deals of Corporate America. Credit Card companies rake in billions of dollars through outrageous interest percentages and Oil companies rake in billions in profit. Why doesn’t the government rake in the highway robbery that is committed by just two of many other scams legalized through corruption?
No votes were easy to guess.
No votes were easy to guess. But I would like to hear from a yes vote why you think taking money from one person and giving to another is ok.
The 75 yes votes are persons
The 75 yes votes are persons on the receiving end; SSD, SS (career welfare ) Medicaid, etc. The work ethic is in the process of being destroyed in this once great work a day Nation.
Let's ask first why should
Let's ask first why should wealth be redistributed? Wealth is EARNED - it is not given, it is not a right, it is not an entitlement, it is not a responsibility of government to control or pretend to redistribute (remember, government is overhead - what it takes in does not go back out), nor is it a basic human characteristic. It is not unfair for Joe to have earned more than Sam, or for Mary to have saved more than Jane, etc... It IS unfair for someone to have invested in higher education, worked his/her way into a decent paying job, and invested in a home and property only to have government claim 50% of the fruits of his/her labor and continually impose further punishment for every improvement made to his/her property.
What IS fair is providing equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for equally capable workers, and freedom of choice on how hard, how long, and for how much every citizen wants to work to acquire wealth.
If you really want to
If you really want to understand why Libertarianism and/or Conservatism are not what most consider mainstream the poll cited in the article is a clear indicator.
The 52% who favor redistribution are indicative of why our major cities in this country have been locked under liberal democrat control since the 1930's,
It is human nature to accept something for nothing, it is not difficult at all to foster envy toward someone who has more, whether they worked for it and/or earned it doesn't matter.
Ironically, you will find that many who voted yes have indeed earned their own way, but are under the misguided perception that charity should emanate from government. (Just a hunch based on previous comments over the last few years on here)
What made the United States different over the years was essentially personal responsibility to succeed and care for your own, couple with generous charity when necessary, unfortunately, the 20th Century saw voluntary charity gradually replaced with government sponsored entitlement, and the fact is there is no way to support that government sponsored entitlement without wealth distribution. Add the gradual reduction in volunteer charity and the result is general apathy (Can we say Europe)
What those who support Government Sponsored Entitlement fail to realize, is that with that comes an abdication of small liberties which gradually add up control of a populace by a ruling elite.
I always get a chuckle when the most liberal among us call conservatives sheep for voicing the more conservative approach, all the while lining people up at the public trough for another feeding.
I love this "notion" like TP
I love this "notion" like TP Hunt has that there is any gain for those collecting any kind of assistance. If taxes go up on the rich it doesnt give the poor anything. The distribution is from the people to the Govt. The welfare that should be removed is the retirement and health care that Higher Govt people get (Senators, Representatives, and Up...)They all get paid well and have other jobs that pay well too. The Govt waste needs to be eliminated. Thats where the real, redistribution goes to.....
Let's be clear here, There
Let's be clear here,
There will always be a need for some sort of welfare, i.e. permanently disabled, mentally ill, etc. I for one do not consider that in itself wealth redistribution. It is the excess of this for political gain which becomes wealth distribution.
What Kyle is referring to isn't what I call redistribution of wealth in the frame of this debate although it is a problem of equal or greater magnitude, that is excessive compensation for services performed by elected and bureaucratic government employees.
Redistribution of wealth is taking the earned money of a group or individual, and by taxation giving a portion of that money to another group of lessor income simply because you can. Ironically, it is the elected and bureaucratic government employees that are receiving what might be excessive compensation to that plan and redistribute the wealth of some to others.
Allow me to keep what I
Allow me to keep what I expend in taxes and I'll keep my own wealth. I could've been financially independent already if my taxes were even half of what they have been over the past 32 years. That's probably the real issue, though. Governments have a vested interest in you NOT becoming financially independent.
This really is a bogus
This really is a bogus question. ...Mainly because the assumption arises that the ambitious are being penalized, forced to underwrite under-achievers. This buzz-phrase, redistribution of wealth, needs to be given a reality-check. Despite the possibility that anecdotal evidence reveals a burgeoning class of welfare cheats and fraudulent medicaid patients who are ripping off hardworking Americans, the vast majority of the fraud in this nation is perpetrated by doctors, pharmacists and other providers- double-billing and price-gouging. But that isn't even the heart of the controversy...
Apparently, the only redistribution of wealth that this forum objects to is that which benefits the poor, the aged and infirm. That's a pretty callous position.
No one has complained about trillions of dollars safely immune to taxation, housed in foreign banks; no one has complained about pharmaceutical companies triple-dipping: being subsidized for R & D, jacking up domestic prices and getting a tax deferral on profits; no one complained about corporations downsizing and shipping jobs to third-world countries while still enjoying a lower tax-rate than average Americans; no one complained about IDAs underwriting business ventures that shield corporations from tax responsibility for years, businesses that put other businesses out of business, create minimal job opportunities while paying slave-wages. No one complained about banks that collapsed the economy and were rewarded with billions in bailouts, used to pad CEO salaries and bonuses.
The same jokers that become indignant when someone else plays the so-called "race card," are never shy about playing the "welfare card." It's BS. You all now it. Yet you throw it out there anyway.
Anyone who wants to complain about wasted money going to undeserving hucksters needs to look at the top of the heap- not the bottom.
The worst example of
The worst example of redistribution is the inheritance tax. Someone works hard, invests well and makes money. That money, earned income, interest income or dividend income, with few exceptions like government bonds, is all taxed,
Then in a money grab, the government taxes it again just because the guy died.
It's my understanding, it's
It's my understanding, it's only taxed if it generates income.
It's always easy to throw in
It's always easy to throw in the populous argument on both sides of the issue isn't CM?
The true problem is the tax code in itself, it isn't about revenue at all, it is about power and control from above. It might surprise you that I agree with most of your points on this, but I will say this
If government should support welfare for the poor and infirmed, it should be local and state government NOT the federal government, the bulk of our taxes should be collected and spent by states and locals, NOT the federal government as it is now.
C.M., your list of complaints
C.M., your list of complaints of "nobody ever complains about" ... simply not true. Libertarians complain about all those things as well all of the time.
And the noxious ideas of "wealth inequality" and "wealth distribution" get spread about all the time "progressive" circles. Just romp through Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and you'll find people complaining about those evil rich people. So there's nothing bogus about the question at all.
The video below, a bit of redistributionist propaganda, has more than five million views.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]
Howard, I was reflecting on
Howard, I was reflecting on the comments to the poll question on YOUR site. I didn't use the word, "evil." You did. The problem boils down to this: if we give breaks to corporations and wealthy; someone else has to pay that share of expenses. The dubious answer is 'cut expenses.' This is circular logic. The benefits shared by all- schools, law enforcement, infrastructure development, etc. are not stagnant costs. They, like everything else, cost more, progressively. So deferring taxes on those who profit from public funded programs places an even greater burden on private citizens. ...While at the same time the programs cut are those intended to mitigate disparities between cost of living and earnings. The middle-class and poor are doubly penalized. The wealth disparities are not the issue. The burden of tax disparities vis-a-vis tax revenue benefit is the issue. One example: the deferrals and grants given to corporations to encourage development; if these included a quid pro quo requiring X number of jobs for X amount of tax breaks or grants- that would be reasonable and worth the expenditure of public money. However, as we all know, that is not the case.
And people on this site --
And people on this site -- especially the libertarian readers -- complain about these very issues regularly.
CM, Your assertion that "The
CM, Your assertion that "The benefits shared by all- schools, law enforcement, infrastructure development," has absolutely NOTHING to do the distribution of wealth, what you stated are government services.
That is not at all what this thread or the poll that inspired it were even remotely talking about
This poll is not about tax
This poll is not about tax rates or tax breaks. It's about how some people think that having too much money is not "fair". That To them, does not matter if the money was earned or inherited, it just is not fair. So they want the government to take away what they feel is too much, and give it to others.
We have a rich history as a
We have a rich history as a charitable people in this country. There was a time prior to FDR starting us down the slippery slope of social democratic thinking that the redistribution of wealth came primarily in the form of private charitable giving. Churches, communities, fraternal organizations, neighbors, families and private agencies somehow managed to care for their neighbors in times of need. There was the full expectation that assistance would be temporary and not become a way of life. As time passed, our state and federal governments continued to add entitlement program after entitlement program, all designed to help the poor, elderly and/or disabled, but resulting primarily in higher taxes and exponentially increasing budget deficits. People became dependent upon government handouts while poverty and dependence upon the government became for some, a multi generational way of life. Savvy politicians quickly found that a dependent populace could be turned into a compliant voter base. Then we were off to the races. Spin the clock ahead to 2013 and we find more public entitlement programs than ever before in the history of our country. Politicians and media ever spinning the story that you must be a cruel, heartless libertarian or conservative if you even question the train wreck of social democracy. Take a look at the states of California and New York, our sparkling examples of wealth redistribution. California, going bankrupt. New York, can't attract business even with tax abatement bribes. These are our shinning examples. Both dismal failures. If taxes and government entitlement programs were really the answer to helping our neighbors, wouldn't it have worked by now? Wouldn't we have seen some decrease in the dependent populace? Wouldn't New York and California be truly prosperous, booming economies? We do more harm than good by putting government in charge of redistributing wealth through the power of taxation. We are not selfish people when we point out that the social democratic agenda has failed. We are a compassionate, caring people with an obligation to speak the truth.
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
This is just one of the many unintended consequences of well meaning but misguided governmental policy.
Howard, I brlieve this is
Howard, I brlieve this is great commentary on your poll today.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/what-is-real-compassion#axzz2R8zk…
Jim your statement....Savvy
Jim your statement....Savvy politicians quickly found that a dependent populace could be turned into a compliant voter base. ........breaks it down to exactly the problem... The government should get rid of all tax breaks and treat us all equally when it come to taxation ..Tax all as we do with sales tax..Pay it when you spend it..No more write offs ,no more credits.No rebate checks..
I would say that, not all
I would say that, not all wealthy people earned their wealth. There are many out there who have cheated and endangered society in obtaining their wealth. There are those who claim their talent is worth millions i.e. sport athletes and actors/actresses. It is one thing to earn your wealth because of what you contribute to society but, when you self proclaim your worth or when you cheat or endanger society it is not earned, it is taken. Unfortunately, we as society feed into the notion that, acting, sports, reality TV is worth the billions we spend to see such. Even a business savvy person doesn’t always earn their wealth fairly.
Yes, politicians are some that cheat society. For example; they give themselves raises and they can’t work out a budget on time, they have become increasingly self serving for the past several decades. I can actually go on and on about their cheating of society. However, the government has always been good at causing fighting between classes to redirect the spotlight from their corruption. Let’s not forgets they are the ones who established the loop holes, exemptions, rules/regulations and supported/granted many of the wealthy deals of Corporate America. Credit Card companies rake in billions of dollars through outrageous interest percentages and Oil companies rake in billions in profit. Why doesn’t the government rake in the highway robbery that is committed by just two of many other scams legalized through corruption?