If Rich Kid for Redistribution were really serious (rather than just trying to impress her OWS friends), she could easily tax herself by making a Gift to Reduce the Public Debt.
Anyone else that doesn't think they're paying their fair share is welcome to contribute too. Ted? Jack Jodell? Anybody?
My guess is that most Americans (rich or poor) take the attitude made famous by the late Senator Russell Long:
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!"
And more so than any Republican? Your persistence in dividing this issue on a partisan level hurts your cause.
Your inability or perhaps unwillingness to expound upon your statements with some explanation as to your opinion makes it hard to discern whether you have any real understanding of the situation and the enormously complex economic factors behind it or if you are just bitching, which is of little intrinsic value.
While I am diametrically opposed to "wealth redistribution", I do not deny that a sense of social injustice is valid in regard to the status quo...
If you can explain how she somehow makes more sense than any Republican (or, even better, explain why she makes less sense than any Democrat), I would be more than willing to consider your point.
How can you be opposed to wealth redistribution? Wealth redistribution goes on every day in every country and every economic system. Currently in this country most of the wealth and income is being redistributed to the richest Americans. All we are asking for is a little economic justice.
Anytime any money changes hands wealth is being redistributed.
That's flat out wrong, Ted; you're mixing apples and oranges.
When I sell something to you that you want to buy, value is being exchanged for value. That's called trade, and it's a win-win situation.
Redistribution of wealth occurs between three parties: the recipient, the involuntary "donor," and the redistributor (i.e. the government) that picks winners and losers.
Some redistribution of wealth is justified. When people are unable to fend for themselves, by either permanent disability (physical or mental) or temporary circumstances (unemployment, injury, etc), society owes it to these people to provide for them as long as they need it (the operative word being need, as opposed to want).
But that's not the only motive for wealth redistribution.
When whole segments of society rely on government to provide for them when they're capable of providing for themselves (e.g. intergenerational welfare), the payoff for the party that arranged for this redistribution comes every two to four years at the ballot box.
In the case of corporate welfare, the payoff comes in the form of campaign contributions to the party that arranged for this form of redistribution.
When redistribution of wealth goes beyond basic needs, the losers are not only the taxpayers, but also those who never experience the satisfaction of improving themselves.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Gotta love that young angel!
ReplyDeleteYou would think the top 1% would invest in an easier to read medium.
ReplyDeleteIf Rich Kid for Redistribution were really serious (rather than just trying to impress her OWS friends), she could easily tax herself by making a Gift to Reduce the Public Debt.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else that doesn't think they're paying their fair share is welcome to contribute too. Ted? Jack Jodell? Anybody?
My guess is that most Americans (rich or poor) take the attitude made famous by the late Senator Russell Long:
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!"
You can make fun of her, but she makes more sense than any Republican in Congress (or running for president).
ReplyDeleteShe makes more sense?
ReplyDeleteAnd more so than any Republican? Your persistence in dividing this issue on a partisan level hurts your cause.
Your inability or perhaps unwillingness to expound upon your statements with some explanation as to your opinion makes it hard to discern whether you have any real understanding of the situation and the enormously complex economic factors behind it or if you are just bitching, which is of little intrinsic value.
While I am diametrically opposed to "wealth redistribution", I do not deny that a sense of social injustice is valid in regard to the status quo...
If you can explain how she somehow makes more sense than any Republican (or, even better, explain why she makes less sense than any Democrat), I would be more than willing to consider your point.
How can you be opposed to wealth redistribution? Wealth redistribution goes on every day in every country and every economic system. Currently in this country most of the wealth and income is being redistributed to the richest Americans. All we are asking for is a little economic justice.
ReplyDeleteCurrently in this country most of the wealth and income is being redistributed to the richest Americans.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your definition of "redistribution"? Does it extend beyond welfare (individual and corporate)?
Come on CT. Anytime any money changes hands wealth is being redistributed.
ReplyDeleteAnytime any money changes hands wealth is being redistributed.
ReplyDeleteThat's flat out wrong, Ted; you're mixing apples and oranges.
When I sell something to you that you want to buy, value is being exchanged for value. That's called trade, and it's a win-win situation.
Redistribution of wealth occurs between three parties: the recipient, the involuntary "donor," and the redistributor (i.e. the government) that picks winners and losers.
Some redistribution of wealth is justified. When people are unable to fend for themselves, by either permanent disability (physical or mental) or temporary circumstances (unemployment, injury, etc), society owes it to these people to provide for them as long as they need it (the operative word being need, as opposed to want).
But that's not the only motive for wealth redistribution.
When whole segments of society rely on government to provide for them when they're capable of providing for themselves (e.g. intergenerational welfare), the payoff for the party that arranged for this redistribution comes every two to four years at the ballot box.
In the case of corporate welfare, the payoff comes in the form of campaign contributions to the party that arranged for this form of redistribution.
When redistribution of wealth goes beyond basic needs, the losers are not only the taxpayers, but also those who never experience the satisfaction of improving themselves.