Stealing From Poor to Give to Rich

[RealityNow]

Poor people line up at the welfare offices to get their benefits - whose money was seized by the government to pay them?

You seem to have a problem with the Government policies that help people.... Yet, you say nothing of the wealthy and the wealthy corporation that drain away $10's and $100's of Billions, every year at a rate that is likely 10 time higher than the cost of Public Service Programs. $23 Trillion debt is not because of Public Service Programs.... It's because of Republican Policies that pander and feed Federal Money to wealthy organizations, wealthy industry, contractors and projects created by the wealth, that has continually fleeced the Federal Government for Decades upon Decades.

Truth Matters > more than passed along selective amnesia based folklore filled with confabulations- wrapped in biased based mindsets.

 

[OscarLevant]

Getting back to basics, capitalism is a powerful engine for economic development. Unrestrained, it will lead to a society of the very rich and the very poor. Controlling it is the function of government.

At this point, we should be able to discuss how to fine-tune the distribution of the wealth that capitalism produces to produce a better overall society. That requires that we agree about just what needs to be bettered. The number of factors to be considered is large.

Thank you. See my comment #124, let's discuss.

 

[Luckyone]

The "rich" pay a disproportionally large amount of the total tax bill; how exactly is that stealing from the poor? Quick clue to Rawstory: The national debt skyrocketed under Obama, almost doubling. Trump inherited that growth. (mockery alert).

Disproportionately large amount? False statement!



In addition:

But Americans pay other federal taxes that are not progressive. For example, everyone who works pays the Social Security payroll tax. This tax does not apply to the investment income that most very wealthy families have, and it only applies to the first $132,900 of earnings a worker receives in 2019.

Americans also pay state and local taxes that are particularly regressive, meaning they capture a larger share of income from low- or middle-income families than from wealthy families. State and local income taxes are much less progressive than the federal income tax, and some states have no income tax at all.

As always, spouting uninformed information!

 

[RealityNow]

Ok, if you don't mind my butting in this conversation. With due respect to my lib brethren, --- I'm a liberal, but I'm not anti-business, anti-hard work and enjoy the fruits of your innovation and labor.

IF someone invents a widget that everyone wants and that someone gets rich doing it, I'm all for it.

What I'm against is when that widget maker doesn't pay his low skilled help enough to live, and when he or she demands 70 hours a week from salaried employees and treats them like slaves.

That **** has got to stop.

Another thing, money is power, and there is the question of how much power should an individual citizen be allowed to possess?

In my view, the idea that someone like Bezos can amass a fortune of 128 billion, that is too much power for an individual to possess.


That much power should only be allowed to be wielded by an elected body of people, i.e., congress.

So, live comfortably, way beyond one's needs, be rich, but not so rich that one can pose a national security threat, if one day one wakes up and goes mad.

Imagine if Bin Laden had 128 billion. He was rich, but he ran out of money quick enough.

What us reasonable libs are for is sanity.

Great Comment!!!

Bezos would not be so rich if he paid all his employees a living wage, with benefits and pension plan, that included profit sharing. There should be a study on how many of his employee are in such economic strain until they relay on public services to make up the slack, because their wages and benefits are insufficient. People like this.. use the government to cover benefit, which their company should provide to their workers. This is unethical, then they are given the ability to claim tax breaks for things that should not be allowed.

Back in The Days, when Unions were Strong and Corporate Tax was higher... Companies Profited, and they only got their tax relief via the deductions that were justifiable, and during that time.. America Grew, it had a Middle Class, (the only MAJOR ISSUE, was it happened during the Era of Segregation)... Once Segregation was over... the Game Plan became to Bust the Union, Lower the Tax and stagnate the wage, "the age of motivation" > To Diminish the accessibility to minorities to gain "economic parity in pay and benefits to have the same "middle class life" that white society enjoyed during the Era of Segregation.
That Game Plan change, had no concern for working poor and poor whites, they were considered as nothing but Collateral Damage, because they were under a different form of Segregation, it was "segregating the poor whites from the well to do whites"... and the well to do middle class, did not want the poor whites to have "economic parity nor economic opportunity to gain economic equilibrium with the well to do and stable within the middle class.

This system must be changed if we expect to have and maintain in the future a more fair economic system. The person who understands this very well is Elizabeth Warren, she's been talking about these principles for decades. The Democratic Platform is based in policies that bring some "equilibrium principles into society".

These same well to do and wealthy have continued to use every form of Lobbyist to buy away the voice of the people, by their means of using wealth to control politicians who submit themselves to selling out the same people who voted them in office, all for the gravy train of staying in a political seat.

NO Lobbyist should ever be allowed to be involved in writing government bills. This should be done by knowledgeable and trained public servants.
Lobbyist should have to meet a "citizen panel" if they have concern.. and submit them to the citizen panel, and if the panel agrees with any of it, they then forward it on to the Politician with their stamp of approval, or they send it back to the lobbyist with their denials summary.

We will get there, because we see over time, "Politicians can't be trusted with that much power", they must be made to meet a citizen panel in regards to their votes... No more of this "Vote Party"... they must vote the voice of people... No one elected them to go and "play gang member", they are to "represent the people".

This younger generation will not be as gullible as the general public of the past, because, they are growing in the age of 'INFORMATION", and information is what puts Power back in the hands of the people. We will get to Public Campaign Financing, because without it, we will continue to have swindlers and crooks in our political office, selling away the concerns of the people, for campaign contribution and under the table means of self enrichment.

 

[Luckyone]

Ok, if you don't mind my butting in this conversation. With due respect to my lib brethren, --- I'm a liberal, but I'm not anti-business, anti-hard work and enjoy the fruits of your innovation and labor.

IF someone invents a widget that everyone wants and that someone gets rich doing it, I'm all for it.

What I'm against is when that widget maker doesn't pay his low skilled help enough to live, and when he or she demands 70 hours a week from salaried employees and treats them like slaves.

That **** has got to stop.

Another thing, money is power, and there is the question of how much power should an individual citizen be allowed to possess?

In my view, the idea that someone like Bezos can amass a fortune of 128 billion, that is too much power for an individual to possess.


That much power should only be allowed to be wielded by an elected body of people, i.e., congress.

So, live comfortably, way beyond one's needs, be rich, but not so rich that one can pose a national security threat, if one day one wakes up and goes mad.

Imagine if Bin Laden had 128 billion. He was rich, but he ran out of money quick enough.

What us reasonable libs are for is sanity.

In addition, there should be a level of income where it can be said that personal accomplishment is fulfilled and national accomplishment increases.

After all, there is a point where enough money has been made for someone (and the entire family) to live 10 lifetimes buying everything they want and still have money left. At that point (or at a point to be decided by vote) an uber rich man should give a larger portion to the nation that gave him the opportunity to become so rich. After all, nothing more can be accomplished personally other than pure greed and ego stroked.

By the way, using Bezos as an example, he makes $215 million each day. At that rate, he and his family can live hundreds of lifetimes without ever going broke. How can anyone not realize that getting to the point where that kind of money can be made does not come with an obligation to give something back to the nation that made it all possible?

 

[Torus34]

Thank you. See my comment #124, let's discuss.

Hi! For the record, my basic position is that of a secular humanist. That doesn't automatically make me an anything. It does mean that I evaluate issues, as best as I can, by how they affect people. Not how they affect on a political party, nor that curious construct, the economy. I avoid the undefinable shibboleths such as freedom, democracy, socialism, etc.. 'Nuff said.

Job 1 for our federal government remains securing the United States of America from foreign attack.* Job 2 is the well-being of the citizens. That shreds out into many areas. Let's start with poverty.

The effects of poverty, especially when concentrated in a specific locale, are well-known. We have statistics galore. What we have not yet been able to do is effect a significant reduction, say by half, of the percent of people in this group. From what I can see, we would do well to avoid the 'solutions' presented by our politicians [Ed.: Often of the one shot variety,] and study the work of the three Nobelists in economics: Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, Their approach does not lead to quick results, but does result in firm information on possible paths forward. It will take many years.

* Much of what our military does has but a tenuous relationship to that mission.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, duh. They would be THE RICH if they didn't own a lot, would they? And why should they voluntarily give it up just because some people are less successful? Fighting against "paying the bill"? Hardly. Many are donating significant portions of their wealth to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

That's great. But they're still going to get taxed significantly more than they are now. We can't depend on the charity of a few wealthy billionaires when they've been extracting the VAST majority of the wealth from society. A handful of billionaires extracting HUNDREDS of billions from the economy and giving tens of millions to charity isn't how a functioning society works.

 

[OldFatGuy]

That's great. But they're still going to get taxed significantly more than they are now. We can't depend on the charity of a few wealthy billionaires when they've been extracting the VAST majority of the wealth from society. A handful of billionaires extracting HUNDREDS of billions from the economy and giving tens of millions to charity isn't how a functioning society works.

The problem with your theory, the actions of that so called handful of billionaires generate trillions in cash flow that flow throughout the economy, an intrinsic part of the economy's fuel. Don't make the error that this translates to trickle down theory. That wealth reflects the value of working businesses, corporations, from which those billionaires hold equities representing the capitalization of those businesses. That money is not static. It is fluid as it is used to create and convey products and services, and in that process generate jobs. That wealth is not extracted from the economy, it is injected into the economy, a necessary lubrication of the economy.

You are suggesting a complete lack of understanding of how an economy functions. Confusing the lack of democratic principles for control of that wealth with the need for that wealth. Were this a socialist or communist nation, a fascist nation, a monarchal nation, controls of that wealth would be in government hands, another group of people more equal than others. You would then be moaning about them.

You raise the greater questions all societies face, who will be responsible for those in need and how will that responsibility fairly be implemented? There are no guarantees of fairness in this life, and governments have certainly not demonstrated equitable distribution of fairness. That is not the fault of billionaires. There are no guarantees that government largess will be more equitably distributed than philanthropic largess. The demonization of wealth is hypocritical at best, fostering an image which is not a truth as a disease to be cured. Under economic systems that are not capitalist, that wealth will merely be transferred to a different control group.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Wealth is wealth, cash, assets, whatever, it's all wealth. The rich have been getting away with amassing fortunes via wealth accrual without paying taxes on it.

Warren wants to put stop to that, and tax wealth. Steyer, a billionaire, is for the idea. Whatever the issues surrounding it are, things can be worked out.

TDS is not an argument.

The rich have been getting away huh? That is not a sane argument.

 

[Robertinfremont]

That's great. But they're still going to get taxed significantly more than they are now. We can't depend on the charity of a few wealthy billionaires when they've been extracting the VAST majority of the wealth from society. A handful of billionaires extracting HUNDREDS of billions from the economy and giving tens of millions to charity isn't how a functioning society works.

They do not extract. They trade. Jeff Bezos trades you for your money, lower prices, free shipping, and coupon deals and you buy. Willingly you buy. If you get a better deal than from Amazon, go there and cause the next guy to sell you goods or services.

 

[Robertinfremont]

In addition, there should be a level of income where it can be said that personal accomplishment is fulfilled and national accomplishment increases.

After all, there is a point where enough money has been made for someone (and the entire family) to live 10 lifetimes buying everything they want and still have money left. At that point (or at a point to be decided by vote) an uber rich man should give a larger portion to the nation that gave him the opportunity to become so rich. After all, nothing more can be accomplished personally other than pure greed and ego stroked.

By the way, using Bezos as an example, he makes $215 million each day. At that rate, he and his family can live hundreds of lifetimes without ever going broke. How can anyone not realize that getting to the point where that kind of money can be made does not come with an obligation to give something back to the nation that made it all possible?

He got rich how? The nation made him rich? Amazon.com is global. So what is that rich stuff? Operating capital for the business? You want cheap products fast with free shipping and expect him to do what the Feds can't do?

 

[Luckyone]

He got rich how? The nation made him rich? Amazon.com is global. So what is that rich stuff? Operating capital for the business? You want cheap products fast with free shipping and expect him to do what the Feds can't do?

What is your point? $215 million per day income is not enough for you? Need more before you feel the need to give something extra to the nation that gave you the tools to do that?

 

[thedimon]

When the debt soars while the rich get richer, this is exactly what we have: the rich stealing from the poor.

Trump runs the country just like he ran his bankrupted businesses: The national debt is skyrocketing while economic growth is lagging

You could have started a discussion about the US debt without communist slogans about rich robbing poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Individual]

Bezos earns $224.22 per day. ($81,840/365)
His wealth increased at an average rate of $215 million per day over a 120 day period as a result of his stock holdings, and is NOT income until he sells some of it.
Perhaps a small sales tax on stock purchases would be reasonable and rational, and I wouldn't complain if ALL sources of money received each year were counted as income and the total after deductions was taxed at the same rate. But I would NOT support any new form of wealth tax.

 

[Robertinfremont]

What is your point? $215 million per day income is not enough for you? Need more before you feel the need to give something extra to the nation that gave you the tools to do that?

Since you claim this nation gave him his tools, this nation also gave you the same tools. Try to get rich. And please, do not keep being jealous. It is not your fortune to make choices over.

 

[thedimon]

Bezos earns $224.22 per day. ($81,840/365)
His wealth increased at an average rate of $215 million per day over a 120 day period as a result of his stock holdings, and is NOT income until he sells some of it.
Perhaps a small sales tax on stock purchases would be reasonable and rational, and I wouldn't complain if ALL sources of money received each year were counted as income and the total after deductions was taxed at the same rate. But I would NOT support any new form of wealth tax.

Sales tax on stock purchase is extreme.
Just treat profit as ordinary income on tax return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robertinfremont]

Bezos earns $224.22 per day. ($81,840/365)
His wealth increased at an average rate of $215 million per day over a 120 day period as a result of his stock holdings, and is NOT income until he sells some of it.
Perhaps a small sales tax on stock purchases would be reasonable and rational, and I wouldn't complain if ALL sources of money received each year were counted as income and the total after deductions was taxed at the same rate. But I would NOT support any new form of wealth tax.

I highlighted the best part. Bezos only converts his wealth in stocks to property, etc. But his earnings are a piddly $224 per day. And Democrats whine about it.

I will say this about the Rich, they are the fathers of the employed, they create benefits we all love. I do not intend to be jealous of their accomplishments.

 

[Individual]

Sales tax on stock purchase is extreme.
Just treat profit as ordinary income on tax return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of my income is from trading, and I wouldn't find a small sales tax extreme, and it would apply primarily to large volume traders and day traders. Just a 1% tax would create a large amount of revenue. And it could be applied to other "investment" spending as well, say anything over $X ($1000, $10,000 or some predetermined amount) would have the tax applied, where only large investors would be taxed.
But I could also support taxing all income sources as ordinary income.

 

[Luckyone]

Since you claim this nation gave him his tools, this nation also gave you the same tools. Try to get rich. And please, do not keep being jealous. It is not your fortune to make choices over.

Taking it to the extreme, eh?

So let me ask you:

So you are saying that if a person can make enough money to buy every other person on earth and become king and lord of the world, that is okay with you? You don't believe there should be any limits or levels at all to what a sole person can accomplish without giving some back?

 

[Bullseye]

That's great. But they're still going to get taxed significantly more than they are now. We can't depend on the charity of a few wealthy billionaires when they've been extracting the VAST majority of the wealth from society. A handful of billionaires extracting HUNDREDS of billions from the economy and giving tens of millions to charity isn't how a functioning society works.

What pure slop! Nobody "extracts" any wealth; well, that's not exactly true, Socialists extract wealth and freedom constantly.

 

[Keridan]

The wealth tax isn't limited to billionaires

You are repeating an argument that right-wingers make which goes something like this: if all the income from the super rich were taxed 100% there wouldn't be enough to fund the government six months.

That's because most of their increased wealth does not come from income, which is often understated due to tax write-off on property depreciation which appreciates.

Now then if you were trying to extrapolate this on wealth you're flat wrong. The top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth.

But even if you are correct, it's a specious argument

Warren isn't trying to fund the entire gov she's trying to raise money for certain programs

Study: Top 1 percent owns 40 percent of nation's wealth, highest point in 50 years - UPI.com

Assets do actually depreciate, wealth is different than income as it has already been taxed and will continue to be taxed through capital gains, and stealing from the rich because they have more is not how you keep their wealth in our system. These are not talking points, they are ability to follow logic. There is a reason that when you adjust capital gains taxes and tax brackets, income is tied far more strongly to GDP than income and gains.

I gotta say, it's a sad day when you openly admit she has no interest in paying for current programs, just a portion of her new and scary ones by confiscating wealth.

 

[Bullseye]

Disproportionately large amount? False statement!

View attachment 67271048

In addition:



As always, spouting uninformed information!

As usual spewing distorted BS.

Table 1: Top 1% earn 19.72% of AGI and pay 37.32% of tax. Looks disproportional to me. And yes the data is from 2016.

 

[Bullseye]

You seem to have a problem with the Government policies that help people.... Yet, you say nothing of the wealthy and the wealthy corporation that drain away $10's and $100's of Billions, every year at a rate that is likely 10 time higher than the cost of Public Service Programs. $23 Trillion debt is not because of Public Service Programs.... It's because of Republican Policies that pander and feed Federal Money to wealthy organizations, wealthy industry, contractors and projects created by the wealth, that has continually fleeced the Federal Government for Decades upon Decades.

Truth Matters > more than passed along selective amnesia based folklore filled with confabulations- wrapped in biased based mindsets.

You should heed your last sentence. Your entire post is LW folklore. But you guys on the left care more about ideological "truth" that concrete facts, right?

 

[D_NATURED]

The "rich" pay a disproportionally large amount of the total tax bill; how exactly is that stealing from the poor? Quick clue to Rawstory: The national debt skyrocketed under Obama, almost doubling. Trump inherited that growth. (mockery alert).

Obama had to pull us out of another Republican depression. Trump had no such crisis. To borrow massively, as cons always do, to create the appearance of prosperity while giving that money to the rich, is the MO of fascists.

The GOP leadership are corrupt, greedy criminals. Their apologists, among the populous, are shamelessly bigoted, apathetic to poverty and, above all, soooooo dumb. They suffer from a viral form of proud retardation and cruelty that they treat like a religion. It doesn't have to make sense, t doesn't have to be good for the country. It's their heritage and no matter how many people suffer, they're fine with it. They serve themselves as much political and fiscal dogma as it takes to wash down their bitter hatred of the poor. They are, collectively, the anti-christ.

 

[Bullseye]

Obama had to pull us out of another Republican depression. Trump had no such crisis. To borrow massively, as cons always do, to create the appearance of prosperity while giving that money to the rich, is the MO of fascists.

The GOP leadership are corrupt, greedy criminals. Their apologists, among the populous, are shamelessly bigoted, apathetic to poverty and, above all, soooooo dumb. They suffer from a viral form of proud retardation and cruelty that they treat like a religion. It doesn't have to make sense, t doesn't have to be good for the country. It's their heritage and no matter how many people suffer, they're fine with it. They serve themselves as much political and fiscal dogma as it takes to wash down their bitter hatred of the poor. They are, collectively, the anti-christ.

Progessive poppycock.