Friedman was for wealth redistribution?
Not so much.
But he was in favor of oppressive governments apparently that implement his ideas :shrug:
tax cuts are not wealth redistribution..... I don't care how many times you people argue as much, it will never be true.
As hard as I try I will never understand why people on the left hate and begrudge the wealthy in this country and want more oftheir money when they are already paying most of the taxes in this country.
Tax cuts are as much income redistribution as tax increases are.
As hard as I try I will never understand why people on the left hate and begrudge the wealthy in this country and want more oftheir money when they are already paying most of the taxes in this country.
We have a mechanism in place to determine who is deserving of financial success. It's called a free market, and those who contribute to society are rewarded according to their contribution. That's why Bill Gates has more money than the crack addict sleeping under a park bench. You and I don't determine who deserves financial success. If I was in charge, Wacko Jacko would have spent his career cleaning public toilets; but I'm not in charge, and I accept that. Your life will be much happier when you also learn to accept that your idea of "fairness" doesn't count for any more than mine.
At least the wealthy ones are mostly self-made. That means they earned their money, instead of having it handed to them just because they exist.
Tax cuts are as much income redistribution as tax increases are. Whenever you change the tax rate you are redistributing wealth. I don't care how many time you people deny it, it will always be true.
Its just a talking point one way or the other.
Inasmuch as zero is a number, that is correct. Neither of these are income redistribution. transfer payments are income redistribution.
You're delusional, wealthy pay most of the taxes??? Did some rich guy tell you that?
I'm not sure what you consider rich but people earning between 50k and 500k pay most of our taxes. I'm talking about executives who do terrible jobs and get payed $1mill+ and get $100k bonuses as they fire people in the name of short term "cost cut" while shrinking the company and driving it back into the dirt from which the real entrepreneurs raised them. The same entrepreneurs who put everything on the line and invested everything they got back in their company and the economy. Those guys I don't mind having low taxes as they give it back.
You're delusional, wealthy pay most of the taxes??? Did some rich guy tell you that?
I'm not sure what you consider rich but people earning between 50k and 500k pay most of our taxes.
I'm talking about executives who do terrible jobs and get payed $1mill+ and get $100k bonuses as they fire people in the name of short term "cost cut" while shrinking the company and driving it back into the dirt from which the real entrepreneurs raised them. The same entrepreneurs who put everything on the line and invested everything they got back in their company and the economy. Those guys I don't mind having low taxes as they give it back.
I'll bite. What's a transfer payment?
It's exactly what it sounds like. A program that exists solely for purpose not of producing a public good, but of transferring resources from one group in society to another. Social Security is an example. TANF is another. WIC is a third, Unemployment a fourth, and so on and so forth.
nowould a trust fund qualify?.
noA tax cut for the rich?
noAn oil depreciation allowance?
noTax write offs for wining and dining for business execs?
only if it is provided by the government at the expense of other taxpayersFree popcorn?
irrelevant.Btw, the programs you mentioned do a lot of good for the public people who receive them
what is a trickle down answer?Please no trickle down answers. I am sick of social Darwinism.
would a trust fund qualify? A tax cut for the rich?
An oil depreciation allowance? Tax write offs for wining and dining for business execs? Free popcorn?
Btw, the programs you mentioned do a lot of good for the public people who receive them.
listen, a rich guy ending up with more of his own money after tax day is not, nor will it ever be, wealth redistribution... it's his money. there has been no transfer... the government taking less of his money is not the same as giving the rich guy someones else's money.
you are still missing a single requirement that makes wealth redistribution what it is... the transfer payment.You can say that over and over. But let's face it. If we start with say, a marginal tax rate on income at $1 million of 25% and then reduce it for half the people to 15% and increase on the other half to 35% you're moving money around, even though you've only manipulated tax rates.
again, favorable tax rates are not wealth redistribution.Let's say two people both make at least $1.1 million. We tax income at $1 million to $1.1 million at 25% starting off. So both will pay 25%, or $25,000 for the year. Now let's split it, we'll tax person A at 15% and person B at 35%. Now person A pays $15,000 and person B pays $35,000. How on earth can you not consider this taking $10,000 from person B and giving it to person A?
yes.. the minute you gave out a transfer payment, it becomes a wealth redistribution.If we simply raised person B's tax holding person A's tax rate constant but instead gave person A an extra one-time social security payment of $10,000 you'd call that wealth redistribution, I hope? Does it really matter whether person A is getting $10,000 more in some government benefit or if person A is paying $10,000 less tax to begin with?
meh, doesn't matter.... you still don't quite have the grasp on wealth redistribution yet... but we'll get there(If you're slow, I'm talking about capital gains vs. ordinary income tax rates - different tax rates, same amount of income.)
He's already told Joe the Plumber that he wants to redistribute wealth, but I think it goes beyond even that.What do you think and why would he want to do that?
yes.. the minute you gave out a transfer payment, it becomes a wealth redistribution.
and now i'm beginning to see your confusion.... you equate keeping your own money to someone giving you someone elses money.
end result might be the same( you got mo money in he bank), but the means are vastly different.
Alright, as long as we're in agreement that the end result is the same I'm satisfied. Semantics isn't an argument I care for. I don't care if I pay $90,000 in taxes or pay $100,000 in taxes and get a $10,000 payment. No difference at all regardless of terminology.
You can say that over and over. But let's face it. If we start with say, a marginal tax rate on income at $1 million of 25% and then reduce it for half the people to 15% and increase on the other half to 35% you're moving money around, even though you've only manipulated tax rates.
Let's say two people both make at least $1.1 million. We tax income at $1 million to $1.1 million at 25% starting off. So both will pay 25%, or $25,000 for the year on that $100,000. Now let's split it, we'll tax person A at 15% and person B at 35%. Now person A pays $15,000 and person B pays $35,000. How on earth can you not consider this taking $10,000 from person B and giving it to person A?
because in no way does the government give Person A $20,000. They just took $20K less.
And yet, the out come is the same.
If we reduce Bill's taxes and increase Bob's such that for the same income Bob pays $20,000 more than Bill it's no different than if we just increased Bob's income tax by $10,000 and gave that $10,000 through some government handout to Bill. At least as far as the dollars are concerned.
Whether an actual government program was involved - I guess it matters to some. "Government handout" has a negative sound to it for sure. To me, I'm just looking at the end result and the end result is the same.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?