"Redistribution of Wealth"

bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2814496
One thing I find interesting is the state of Alaska. Its to my understanding that Palin partook in redistributing the wealth. Giving residents approx. $3200 based off of windfall tax on Big Oil.
ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.

The difference is that the citizens of Alaska own Alaska. The Alaskans are selling their oil that's in the ground to Big Oil and they've agreed on a price. It's not a tax nor wealth redistribution, it's a purchase price.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2814077
If I understood the transcript correctly, Obama says that redistribution of wealth is more of a legislative than a judicial issue, which is true. The question that vexes us all is just how far should this redistribution go? It is the nature of government to redistribute some wealth. After all, what are police and armies but a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who serve to secure the security of the community. Same with schools, garbage collection, etc. A government can go further and share the wealth by supporting health care, libraries, parks, etc. It is all a redistribution of wealth. And, I suspect that you and I, Journey, are going to disagree on the extent of redistribution, but how can we disagree on the concept. You make your living through the redistribution of citizen wealth, and my career is dependent on winning research grants, which are also a result of redistribution of collected funds.
Read the quote again... He specifically talks about how the courts were not used.
Police and the military, as well as libraries, highways, and other public services are in no way a redistribution of wealth.
Nor is my paycheck a form of it.
Public services offer everyone a return equally. My job was an open contract bid that I had to qualify for. My qualification was in no way determined by my skin color or gender.
I cannot comment on your grant process.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
And I forgot to mention that I'm all for shifting the tax brackets upward so 250,000 isn't the magical number, 500k seems like a more realistic upper limit.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814468
Well, I would say its obvious that most people in the middle class work, so not paying as much in taxes.
I'm all for the don't pay as much in taxes, but there is no way that either Obama or McCain will drastically cut spending so someone has to pay for it. I would much rather cut out a lot of gov't spending as most of it is not needed. But, a spending freeze would wreak havoc on our economy, but go figure the guy that doesn't know anything about economics suggests this. This would be worse than increasing taxes....
And who do they work for?
They work for the businesses and the rich people you want to "redistribute" into oblivion. Guess what happens to their jobs when their employer starts looking to cut costs?
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2814507
The difference is that the citizens of Alaska own Alaska. The Alaskans are selling their oil that's in the ground to Big Oil and they've agreed on a price. It's not a tax nor wealth redistribution, it's a purchase price.
The gov't owns the land... its state owned land, which is similar to land drilled on in the states... It is a tax... look it up. The land is also most often inhabitable... meaning no one lives on it.
In the lower 48... 80% of the land leased to oil is not being drilled on.... and the leases cost only $2 to $3 an acre.
I'll also add, that most of Alaska is owned by the Federal Gov't, not state
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814504
Well, yes. And I've stated that the trickle down works at times. If the money is always invested into new jobs/business ventures then the rich do not take out the money as dividends and then do not get taxed on it. Its when they are greedy and do not reinvest their money they get taxed, and I'm all for that. The higher tax rate acts as a motivation for reinvesting profits into the community, therefore creating a trickle down where everyone benefits. But this does not always work, and I think if you are taking the money out in excess (b/c an owner is allowed to take some of his profit right? I mean you can't blame them) you should be taxed. And this is what our progressive tax system motivates people to do, but everyone wants to flatten it.
What is this mercantilistic idea in your head. greedy people don't hord money they invest it to make MORE MONEY. The desire for more is what would drive them to hire more people. They don't hire people out of the benevolence of their heart. Or to get a tax break. They hire people because they use them as a tool to make more money. Hording money means you aren't making any more money.
2nd who is the federal government to say how much money is fair?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2814496
One thing I find interesting is the state of Alaska. Its to my understanding that Palin partook in redistributing the wealth. Giving residents approx. $3200 based off of windfall tax on Big Oil.
ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.
You guys are totally missing what Obama said.
Did Palin use the courts in Alaska to take money from the wealthy to give to a racial segment of the population of Alaska?
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2814522
And who do they work for?
They work for the businesses and the rich people you want to "redistribute" into oblivion. Guess what happens to their jobs when their employer starts looking to cut costs?
Well, first its not "redistribution", its shifting who pays more for gov't. Its not taking money and giving money as some of the right wingers have twisted it into. But you can't give someone a tax break without increasing taxes for someone else, unless of course you are Bush and don't care about balancing a budget.
Second, I'll let you catch up with reading the thread as the rest of your question is answered above.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2814532
What is this mercantilistic idea in your head. greedy people don't hord money they invest it to make MORE MONEY. The desire for more is what would drive them to hire more people. They don't hire people out of the benevolence of their heart. Or to get a tax break. They hire people because they use them as a tool to make more money. Hording money means you aren't making any more money.
2nd who is the federal government to say how much money is fair?
Mecantilistic huh? Well, if they are continually reinvesting it, then they don't see the tax increase and therefore your argument for decreasing their taxes is void.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2814540
Mecantilistic huh? Well, if they are continually reinvesting it, then they don't see the tax increase and therefore your argument for decreasing their taxes is void.
I'm just pointing out what a "greedy" person would really do. Seems to me like what you are proposing that the "greedy" evil rich people are doing is mercantilistic. Do I think they do 100% investment, no. But if someone was really trying to grow his business he would have close to a 100% reinvestment.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2814528
The gov't owns the land... its state owned land,
I see, so you don't believe the Government is owned by the people? That must be where our beliefs diverge. I believe in a government by the people for the people.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2814528
In the lower 48... 80% of the land leased to oil is not being drilled on.... and the leases cost only $2 to $3 an acre.
Either the lease isn't worth much because of a low quantity of oil, some politician was bribed to lease at a cheap rate, or someone was incompetent.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
1st- the whole context of the Joe Plumber question and answer needs to be shown... Obama gave a clear explanation of his plan to the guy, and as usual.. the right media takes only a snippet from the conversation.
2nd- we have always had some wealth redistribution in our tax structure.. where as the more you make the higher the % it is taxed. Gov't and corporate america has had the same philosophy the last years, which is why we are in this credit crunch... people borrowed too much... which will continue if McCain is elected... we do need to trim our spending, but at the same time we do need to increase taxes.. A McCain admin would put us further in the hole, while we continue record spending with lower tax revenues. So since we need more revenue to balance the budget... it would be responsible to tax those who can afford it, those that's standard of living is not going to be affected by restoring their tax bracket.
3rd- the interview I listened to seems pretty edited... I don't know what context they are talking.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
On your second point - McCain has stated he will reduce spending, Obama is the guy that wants to increase spending.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Here it is in a nut shell ,and tell me where im wrong on my logic here.
Federal Government increases tax on the top 5% of Businesses.So what happens?Does the top 5%
1.Be "Patriotic" and pay the taxes.
2.Pass the cost on to the consumer.
3.Layoff employees or worse even close its doors.
4.Move to other countries that will take less and and pay non American workers less.
If someone could answer these questions for me ,and tell me how this doesn't effect me as a lower middle class citizen,i will gladly shut up and start whistling the Star Spangled Banner until November 4th.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2814593
1st- the whole context of the Joe Plumber question and answer needs to be shown... Obama gave a clear explanation of his plan to the guy, and as usual.. the right media takes only a snippet from the conversation.
You mean took the driving point of his plan and blasted it. To use government to "spread the wealth around." Check out the link I posted has the full interview. If this doesn't make our founders roll over in their graves I dont' know what will.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I don't think any of us have a problem with the government redistributing wealth as far as investing in poor schools and job training to PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THEMSELVES SUCCESSFUL. Giving more handouts to people is no different than feeding a stray cat. They keep coming back for more but that is exactly what Obama wants to do
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of people on welfare in our country are women with young children, who lack the skills to get better paying jobs. These people are not living high on the hog, as some people would like to suggest. The system is far from perfect and we should put more money into these people to train them so they can get off welfare and find better jobs. Isn't minimum wage roughly $5.15 cents an hour?. If you work 40 hours a week that's only $206 a week before taxes. When you have a family to feed, rent to pay, bills to pay and an assortment of other expenditures that's not enough to live on. I find it hard to believe that a family can live on less then $50,000 a year without some help.
I think the minimum wage should be closer to $10.00 an hour or don't tax people who make minimum wage. I am sure there are some great ideas out there to assist people and give incentives for them to get off welfare but crying about your money going to help the "crack mom" or "ghetto rat" isn't gonna do a think to solve the problem.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2814537
You guys are totally missing what Obama said.
Did Palin use the courts in Alaska to take money from the wealthy to give to a racial segment of the population of Alaska?
Please don't tell me you think the premise behind this edited speech you found is Obama's grand scheme to grant reparations to his 'fellow black citizen's' once he gets into office? I know the Caucasians in this country are becoming the minority, but if he even attempted to do something like that, he'd get tossed out of office faster than Nixon. Either that, or shot the next time he went to Alabama, Louisiana, or South Carolina...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top