The new version of poverty

#101
#101
volinbham said:
"making" is a loaded word here. the increase in wealth for the rich was not taken from the poor thus the notion of redistribution is flawed.

You could say that Bush redistributed wealth less than others since he didn't take as much from the rich but it's not correct to say the Bush tax cuts redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich. The system is still progressive.

As paul1454 points out, the Bush tax cuts increased the the number of people with tax rates less than zero. That is redistribution - that is a direct cash payment from one group of taxpayers (those with positive taxes) to another (those with negative taxes)
Click to expand...

I thought I already stated this, but my definition is different than your definition. I'm not directly implying that I take $15,000 from you and give it to a lower percentile, if that fits your definition fine.

These numbers don't back up the actual results.

From the 40s to the 70s the marginal income tax rate was in the 70% to 90% range. There was not much of a reason to seek $100 million bonus payments if Uncle Sam 80 percent of it.

Taking away the high marginal rates had a perverse incentive that backfired. So now there is no reason not to be as greedy as possible.

Thus also a contributing factor to the divide.
 
#103
#103
BigPapaVol said:
How can they more when they pay less than 10% of the total taxes? You do understand that millions more became net tax gainer under the Bush tax program.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The rich get richer, and the poor go no where.

That is clearly evident.
 
#106
#106
bam15 said:
I thought I already stated this, but my definition is different than your definition. I'm not directly implying that I take $15,000 from you and give it to a lower percentile, if that fits your definition fine.

These numbers don't back up the actual results.

From the 40s to the 70s the marginal income tax rate was in the 70% to 90% range. There was not much of a reason to seek $100 million bonus payments if Uncle Sam 80 percent of it.

Taking away the high marginal rates had a perverse incentive that backfired. So now there is no reason not to be as greedy as possible.

Thus also a contributing factor to the divide.
Click to expand...

The term wealth redistribution implies an entity is taking wealth from one group and giving it to another. Lowering tax rates simply doesn't fit that definition.

What is your definition?

You've claimed that collecting less taxes from someone is giving them wealth. I just don't see how you can justify that sentiment.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes. Does lowering marginal rates allow someone to keep more of the wealth they've accumulated? Yes. Does lowering marginal rates = redistribution? No.
 
#109
#109
bam15 said:
The rich get richer, and the poor go no where.

That is clearly evident.
Click to expand...

How do the rich get richer without taking on risk? That's what is always left out of the class warfare literature. The wealthy invest in our economy and move forward by taking on risk. Penalizing their return with outsized taxes is a really bad idea for our future.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#110
#110
BigPapaVol said:
How? Quit with the dem talking points crap and tell me how.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So considering he cut taxes for the wealthiest percentile at record levels during placid economic times - you're still telling me he didn't focus on the top percentile?
 
#113
#113
bam15 said:
So considering he cut taxes for the wealthiest percentile at record levels during placid economic times - you're still telling me he didn't focus on the top percentile?
Click to expand...

When? How? Which cuts were at placid times? How were they concentrated?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#114
#114
bam15 said:
So considering he cut taxes for the wealthiest percentile at record levels during placid economic times - you're still telling me he didn't focus on the top percentile?
Click to expand...

validity of this statement aside - tell me how this qualifies as wealth redistribution?

I'm still awaiting your definition.
 
#115
#115
volinbham said:
The term wealth redistribution implies an entity is taking wealth from one group and giving it to another. Lowering tax rates simply doesn't fit that definition.

What is your definition?

You've claimed that collecting less taxes from someone is giving them wealth. I just don't see how you can justify that sentiment.

Have the rich gotten richer? Yes. Does lowering marginal rates allow someone to keep more of the wealth they've accumulated? Yes. Does lowering marginal rates = redistribution? No.
Click to expand...

When your tax percentage is higher/lower than another percentile and you're taking in more money. That is wealth redistribution. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be a flat tax or no income tax at all. Obviously, that wouldn't work either. I'm still not understanding your underlying economy policy - I want the Middle Class to expand, not stay stagnant.

If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
 
#116
#116
bam15 said:
When your tax percentage is higher/lower than another percentile and you're taking in more money. That is wealth redistribution. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be a flat tax or no income tax at all. Obviously, that wouldn't work either. I'm still not understanding your underlying economy policy - I want the Middle Class to expand, not stay stagnant.

If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
Click to expand...
No. Wealth redistribution is unidirectional. Blood cannot come from a turnip.

All the class commentary is superfluous to the conversation and more left driven relativist political commentary.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#117
#117
BigPapaVol said:
I see some idol worship. Clearly one needs a PhD to keep up with the high brow econ bring tossed about in here, where for a while demand was the lone driver of price.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

avatar2531_4.gif

:boredom:
 
#119
#119
volinbham said:
validity of this statement aside - tell me how this qualifies as wealth redistribution?

I'm still awaiting your definition.
Click to expand...

You might want to lie down and get comfortable. The last time redistribution from the poor to the wealth occurred was before Robin Hood defeated Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
 
#120
#120
bam15 said:
If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
Click to expand...

It's because the rich continue to do the things that make them rich (work for a living and take risk) while the poor continue to do the things that make them poor (sit on their butts and say gimme gimme gimme to the government)
 
#121
#121
bam15 said:
When your tax percentage is higher/lower than another percentile and you're taking in more money. That is wealth redistribution. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be a flat tax or no income tax at all. Obviously, that wouldn't work either. I'm still not understanding your underlying economy policy - I want the Middle Class to expand, not stay stagnant.

If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
Click to expand...

Correct... many of the poor aren't working which is why they are stagnant.
 
#122
#122
bam15 said:
When your tax percentage is higher/lower than another percentile and you're taking in more money. That is wealth redistribution. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be a flat tax or no income tax at all. Obviously, that wouldn't work either. I'm still not understanding your underlying economy policy - I want the Middle Class to expand, not stay stagnant.

If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
Click to expand...

The phrase you are looking for is "vertical inequity" not "wealth redistribution."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
bam15 said:
When your tax percentage is higher/lower than another percentile and you're taking in more money. That is wealth redistribution. The only way that it wouldn't exist would be a flat tax or no income tax at all. Obviously, that wouldn't work either. I'm still not understanding your underlying economy policy - I want the Middle Class to expand, not stay stagnant.

If the rich is getting richer and the poor is stagnant, something isn't working.
Click to expand...

Wanting the middle class to expand is not proof that lowering marginal rates redistributes wealth from the poor to rich.

I haven't expressed an economic policy; I'm showing why Bush did not redistribute wealth to the rich. It is a misuse of the concept.

If a flat tax is not redistribution how can a progressive tax (as it remained under Bush) be redistribution from poor to rich? Definition of these terms does matter.

Rich guy has 100 apples; poor guy has 10. Government takes 40 from rich guy and 1 from poor guy. New government reduces tax rates and as a result rich guy only has 36 taken while poor guy now keeps all ten. The rich guy now has 54 more apples than poor guy when he used to only have 51 more. How is this wealth redistribution to the rich guy? Did the government take apples from the poor guy to give to the rich guy? No. Does the rich guy have more wealth? Yes and so does the poor guy. The both gained but the rich guy did not gain at the expense of the poor guy.
 
#124
#124
paul1454 said:
The phrase you are looking for is "vertical inequity" not "wealth redistribution."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You know more about economics than I do. I just see wealth shifting toward the top. Not that the shift is new, it's been occurring since Reagan. Actually it occurred during the Clinton years as well, but it was slowed down. This gap cannot be tolerated. Essentially what I believe is a certain gap between the two, with both classes growing. However, incidentially all we are seeing is one class growing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#125
#125
bam15 said:
You know more about economics than I do. I just see wealth shifting toward the top. Not that the shift is new, it's been occurring since Reagan. Actually it occurred during the Clinton years as well, but it was slowed down. This gap cannot be tolerated. Essentially what I believe is a certain gap between the two, with both classes growing. However, incidentially all we are seeing is one class growing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

that's because the rich do things that increase their wealth (work, education, investment) and the poor do things that exacerbate their poverty (lack of education and financial discipline, single parenthood).

crying for economic, social and redistributive justice won't do a thing to shrink the gap
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top