Redistribution of Wealth

I'm sure this has been discussed before (this is Hip Forums, after all) but maybe there are enough new voices for a do-over. People talk about redistribution of wealth from time-to-time, so I would like to know what HF posters mean by this; from whom, to whom, by what means, why, what is to be accomplished, when - things like that?

Can we have a civilised discussion without animosity and name calling, please?

 

probably not. this is hip forums after all :tongue:

 

i think the tax rates on the rich should just keep going up as long as we have ppl living below the poverty line. it makes no sense why rich exploiters should be allowed to take more from the economy than everyone else while people are hurting at the bottom end. no way to justify that really. fairness demands it.

 

I'm not for outright confiscating what one person has in order to give to someone else based solely on some altruistic policy of correcting economic injustice. I do not at all believe that any such program would meet with long term positive results.

I think economic wrongs can be fixed in other ways.

 

Progressive tax system where individuals making over $150,000 a year pay 50%.

Why? Because the more money you make the easier it is to make more using compound interest. I don't think huge accumulations of wealth by a few at the top is healthy for the economy as a whole.

Plus, it puts pressure socially between the rich and the poor the greater the disparity gets.

 

Individuals making over $150,000 a year tend to have better access to tax dodges and loopholes than the poor. They also tend to be the ones creating the jobs that the working poor are filling.


If you want economic justice and preserve dignity to those who are willing to work their way up- just ensure that the spending power of the money they DO earn can cover a simple lifestyle... regulate the cost of the bare basics so someone stuck with a minimum wage job can feed, clothe, and shelter him/herself.... and working ones way up the wage ladder enables some savings.

 

I agree with that for the most part. I would adovate closing the loop holes, but still raising taxes to 50% similar to the British. I don't buy into the trickle down theory. That money could then be pumped into lowering tuition costs.

Interesting. How would you regulate that?

 

Regulate? Those who earn just enough to not qualify for welfare can be issued ID cards to gain access to military surplus... open up Civil PX outlets where food and clothing can be had wholesale for people earning below the poverty line.

 

50%?! that's a little much. i would just ask to be paid $149,000

 

Jesus, 50%?

 

How would the taxing authorities distinguish between the "rich exploiters" and those who get their riches from innovation/entrepenuership, risk taking, hard work and sacrifice? Who are the rich? Would there be an income standard or a net worth standard?

 

Which loop holes would you close? Most are put in place to foster some redeeming social value, like the deduction for charital giving, for instance.

Speaking of tuition costs, why should they rise so dramatically faster than the rate of inflation? That is off topic and shouldn't be discussed here, but maybe somebody should open a new thread.

 

It's 39% now so not that much higher. It was closer to 50% in the 1990's when the economy was booming. On the flip-side, I would never adovocate taxes over 50% for anyone.

 

I was hoping for a global discussion, too, not just American. Should some of America's riches, or China's (or most nations north of the equator) be somehow redistributed to poorer nations? If so, how?

 

lol no

 

But if you take the 39% in effect now, and add to that all the state and municiple income taxes, and capital gains and social security, most of the rich are already paying over 50% on their income.

 

It could be more, but then there are also loop holes and other ways to dodge. The main point is ever since the taxes were cut for the top bracket the disparity between rich and poor has increased. It hasn't been this high since 1929.

 

Top income tax bracket for the federal level is 35%, been that way since the Bush tax cuts in 01.

And nah our wealth shouldn't be redistributed, though we should give more in foreign aid.

 

i can't believe that anyone pays 39% taxes. i'm probably wrong though.

 

You don't think the disparity has negative consequences? I think it played a part in causing the Great Depression.