PDA

View Full Version : Rich and taxed.



AnonyMouseII
06-22-2004, 10:18 AM
Explain to me how raising the taxes on the wealthy will help the U.S. Explain to me how repealing the tax breaks will benefit the economy.
Explain to me how repealing the tax breaks will creat new jobs.

Please, help me make some sense of the Demos rant!

Miss Mally
06-22-2004, 10:29 AM
I can't Anon....I am as blown away as you are by their thinking.

BigGunz
06-22-2004, 03:47 PM
you cant splain the unsplainable!.....lol

RogueEconomist
06-24-2004, 11:57 PM
I am not a dem, but as an economist I can say some form of wealth redistribution is needed to keep an economy healthy or too few end up with all the wealth, such as in Mexico where 20 familes control 98% of all wealth. Eastland county dosnt have any wealthy people in the grand design, a few well to do. The entire counties bank deposits added to geather isnt much. As a group we are becoming poorer over time in real buying power.

Miss Mally
06-25-2004, 12:16 AM
I am not a dem, but as an economist I can say some form of wealth redistribution is needed to keep an economy healthy or too few end up with all the wealth, such as in Mexico where 20 familes control 98% of all wealth. Eastland county dosnt have any wealthy people in the grand design, a few well to do. The entire counties bank deposits added to geather isnt much. As a group we are becoming poorer over time in real buying power.

Mexico's problems are more than wealth distribution. They have yet to move fully from an agricultual base to an idustial base...but they are workng on it. They also have a class problem...that is carried over from the Spanish rule.

We on the other hand seem to be moving from a industial base to a service based economy. It is an evolution a part of growth. If we stay in an industrial base economy...we will grow stall and unable to afford the very things we make.

Girlie
06-25-2004, 09:26 AM
I am not a dem, but as an economist I can say some form of wealth redistribution is needed to keep an economy healthy or too few end up with all the wealth, such as in Mexico where 20 familes control 98% of all wealth. Eastland county dosnt have any wealthy people in the grand design, a few well to do. The entire counties bank deposits added to geather isnt much. As a group we are becoming poorer over time in real buying power.

Make that 21 families, unless, of course, the lottery winner is already a member of those 20 !

RogueEconomist
06-25-2004, 07:47 PM
I am not a dem, but as an economist I can say some form of wealth redistribution is needed to keep an economy healthy or too few end up with all the wealth, such as in Mexico where 20 familes control 98% of all wealth. Eastland county dosnt have any wealthy people in the grand design, a few well to do. The entire counties bank deposits added to geather isnt much. As a group we are becoming poorer over time in real buying power.

Mexico's problems are more than wealth distribution. They have yet to move fully from an agricultual base to an idustial base...but they are workng on it. They also have a class problem...that is carried over from the Spanish rule.

We on the other hand seem to be moving from a industial base to a service based economy. It is an evolution a part of growth. If we stay in an industrial base economy...we will grow stall and unable to afford the very things we make.

It is true that we are moving from a industial base to a service based economy. A service based economy is highly represented by low paying jobs. A evolution yes but not a good one , more of a sigh of decline. My point is too few people have too much of the money. Even in the bible they had the year of jublee that reset everything, we need a resetting.

Miss Mally
06-25-2004, 08:30 PM
I am not a fan of forced redistribution. When you take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't...those who work hard loose incentive to continue being producers. Even the bible tells us...those that will not work, neither shall he eat.

Not all aspects of service industry is lower paying. Differing services have differing pay scales. Those that require more technical skills pay at a much higher rate. In order to prosper in the service economy...you must have education.

Phoneguy
06-26-2004, 01:51 PM
If our country had a "wealth redistribution", what would be the point of working to gain wealth? Why would I want to work, if someone was going to decide I had too much, and I stood to lose it to someone else who was sitting back on his rear, waiting for his handout?

Magnify that by millions of hard working people, and you have a potential for a sluggish, faltering economy. Why would any of us want to work, if we all stood to lose it by a "wealth redistribution"?

I don't believe anyone can have a healthy economy by doing some sort of forced wealth redistribution. Sounds like hogwash to me! (Will someone tell me what "hogwash" is? LOL)

Girlie
06-26-2004, 02:06 PM
phoneguy, hahaha, I would think "hogwash" is that which hogs waller around in ... eeewwwwwww!!!

DrDon
06-26-2004, 03:19 PM
The Dems wish to repeal the Bush tax cuts is all about power, just as it always is with the party leadership.

By redistributing wealth, you're essentially buying off voters.
Most will vote for the politician who's putting extra money in their pocket.

RogueEconomist
06-27-2004, 12:20 AM
I would be for thoses earning the money to keep more of it if not all of it. The real problem is massive wealth being passed from one generation to another.
Its like a farmer being given seed to grow a crop or given the whole crop.
If a person is given 50 lifetimes buying power it is unlikely they will accomplish anything.
Why should the average persons income that they struggle to earn be taxed at such a huge rate when if you are lucky enough to have rich ancestors you pay nothing when billions are passed on to you. Should luck or hard work be rewarded? Should reward in America be based on hard work or some kind of class aristoricy that takes more and more of the money out of circulation. Someone that earns their wealth should be able to keep it, someone that is given wealth dosnt appreciate it and more times than not contributes very little to society and tend to be snobs.
You cant have it both ways do you tax the earners of wealth or those that get it free.

Miss Mally
06-27-2004, 12:37 AM
I would be for thoses earning the money to keep more of it if not all of it. The real problem is massive wealth being passed from one generation to another.
Its like a farmer being given seed to grow a crop or given the whole crop.
If a person is given 50 lifetimes buying power it is unlikely they will accomplish anything.
Why should the average persons income that they struggle to earn be taxed at such a huge rate when if you are lucky enough to have rich ancestors you pay nothing when billions are passed on to you. Should luck or hard work be rewarded? Should reward in America be based on hard work or some kind of class aristoricy that takes more and more of the money out of circulation. Someone that earns their wealth should be able to keep it, someone that is given wealth dosnt appreciate it and more times than not contributes very little to society and tend to be snobs.
You cant have it both ways do you tax the earners of wealth or those that get it free.

I believe everyone should spend all their money before they die...and if they are so rich they can't spend it all...then give it all to those in need.

Now...having said that...some that inherit...have worked for it too. Some have worked in the family business...helped their parents build it...keep it going. Why shouldn't they reap some of the gains.

RogueEconomist
06-27-2004, 01:00 AM
True, how about a million dollar exemption. A million dollars in seed money should be enough for anyone. My problem is with massive wealth
that the person gets without effort. Take the walmart fortune, Sam worked hard built huge empire, his kids for the most part have not worked a day in their Life. I know one on them, one of the most unhappy people you will ever meet, has no purpose in life, stays drunk most of the time. makes about a milloin dollars a day on intrest off of Sams labors.
Would that person be better off if they had rec only a million, they may of tried to turn the mill into more through hard work. No reason to do anything that will contribute to society.
I say take everything over 1 mil per aire and redistribute. Then cut the tax load on the earners. The only super rich class the US needs is the generation that earned the money. I have no problem with Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc in being super rich, I have a problem with their great grand children who never met them being even richer off of old money efforts through no efforts of their own.
Old money bad, earned money good