Planning Starts for Income Redistribution

Ah yes the "fair share" arguement. There usually is someone that wants to tell you what your fair share is - but doesn't want you to tell them what their fair share is.

What is fair about taking a big bunch of money from a few people, a stack of money from some people, and very little or no money from a lot of people?

I'm interested in a flat tax or the fair tax. It would be interesting to see a real debate on these two approaches.

Keep in mind that the "little more" is exactly what they were paying before Bush's tax cut .... and during that time everyone and especially those "poor" rich people made a killing and became much much richer and that was great for all

they sure saved what you call "big bunch of money" because of that tax cut. and it is still in effect TODAY ....

are they happy now and made more during that tax cut than what they made during the time when they were paying that "big bunch"?

isnt it strange mentality to oppose paying a little extra to get a lot more and support a tax cut that actually makes you get a lot less?

how does that get lost on people i will never know!!!!!!

which is better:

making $1000 and paying 25% taxes on it ... net ($750) OR

making $2000 and paying 33% taxes on it ... net ($1340) ?

what is soooo terrible about paying 32% more in taxes if it will increase your income by more tha 78%?

do you hate making your self richer while making a better life for everyone else possible?

would you cry over $410 more in taxes ... and forget that you made $590 more than before?

do you really think rich people made more money in the last 8 years than what they did during the previous 6 yrs?

exactly what is your problem?

if you think you can make the $2000 without increasing the taxes to 33% then you are dreaming .... it cant happen that way .... take your pick ... you cant wish the impossible. That increase in your taxes is the reason that your sales increased and your profits doubled.....

what exactly is your reason for not understanding that?

your higher taxes goes to people who cant afford your product without them ... with it, they go and buy more and you make even more than what you paid extra in taxes

what is soooo difficult in understanding that?

Wow, Frogboy must pay well. And he clearly hires from among people who read into politics, whatever that means .

Paying what's fair means that the top 5% of incomes in this country should have to pay the most to bail out our economy simply because they can take the hit and then order a big fat NY strip from a fancy steakhouse. Taxing the bulk of the American people would not yield as much revenue and would decrease their buying power.

That has been debated to death !!!

if i make $100 a week and pay 15% taxes on it ... net $85

and you make $500 a week and pay 15% taxes ... net $425

are you saying that my $ 15 less in income have the same impact as the $75 on you?

that is what you call fair?

your $75 less in income may cause you to forget about a night out dinner ... my $15 less in income will result in a no dinner night for me .... that is the same?!!!!! That is what you call fair???!!!!

btw, isnt that the same idea behind the "Sale" concept employed by every consumer-based business?

they cut the price (in effect they cut their profits) .... and you think they do that for fun?

their profits, no boubt, increase even though they decrease their margin in each item. ....

it is the same idea ... they make it possible for more people to afford their products ... and they make more money even though their margin/item decreases.  it is not how much you make on each item it is how much you make in total...

same thing ... it is not how much you pay in taxes ,,, it is how much you make in total ...

I see that some see tax cuts as good.  Glad you are on board with that, since you agree that "everyone" benefitted.

But how quickly they degenerate into old patterns.  Get it straight.  They lost less, they did not get more.  And if you want them to lose  a lot less, go ahead and penalize them.  They know how to avoid penalties as has been shown historically.

Strawman and incorrect.  How about these apples.

You get paid $100/hr.  But you have to work 40 hours a week and then get taxed 50% on those 40.  But because you make so much, you have to work an additional 8 hours a week for no pay.  That money goes to a man who does not work at all because he does not want to.

That is what you are supporting, not your flowery denial of confiscation.

And you can work, so you have to work 30 hours for yourself, and 10 hours a week for someone else.  WHy?  Because you can. that is why.

The failure of people to use their brains sometimes when spouting talking points continues to amaze me.  Not surprise as I do understand most people just dont use their brains, but is is amazing.

Check out the bolded words.  THEY have the right to make that decision.  The CUSTOMER does not.  Your analogy fails.

I love it when you use these kinds of comparisons. It just makes me crack up. If you can explain to me how anyone can live off of $100 then maybe I can take your argument seriously. But considering that this person is more likely to be living with someone who also brings in a pay check, chances are those $85 are more likely to end up in that persons pockets. Sorry but, this argument is lame. Those $75 I would lose would hurt me big time. Because Unlike the $100 person who most likely does not pay rent, water, electricity, car payments, insurance, etc, I do.

OOO you smacked him good!'

Anyways you notice that most people that support this so called raise on the riches taxes are not the ones for the most part that have to pay them???! its all about MEMEMEMEMEMEMMEMEEMMEME! WHAT FREE HANDOUTS CAN I GET THAT I DIDNT WORK FOR OMGZOR!@

Taxing people according to their ability to pay seems to have some fairness behind it to me. Are you suggesting having people on $10k income (needing say $10k to survive) get taxed $2k and then having to cut out some necessity (such as food) is fair while not taxing that person (because they need all that money just for the barest necessities) has no fairness in it whatsoever?

So what, you should give the government $100 of your profit so they can then waste a bit, then give the remainder back to people, who will spend some of it at stores, of which some of it goes to your store, meaning you give them $100, get back $1 via increased profits, and should be happy with this?

You spend 100% more effort/time (assuming a constant ratio between them and earnings) but only get a 79% increase in what you take home, so no, you might not want to do that.

To give you a quick example (based off yours):

which is better:

Working 48 hours a week and getting net $750 OR

working 96 hours a week (assuming you're one of those miraculous people whose productivity doesn't suffer from lack of sleep) and getting net $1340?

Is it sooooo hard to understand why you might just go for the first option?

Let me get this straight, your argument against diminishing returns to income is that poor people have someone rich they live with to leech off of?

It's fairly simple to understand the principle of diminishing returns/utility to income. $1 is worth a lot more to a begger than to a millionaire.

The numbers don't have to be exact for the argument to remain. Times the numbers by 10 if it makes you happy. Ironically though you saying this is actually supporting what ThinkAloud was arguing - don't tax that poor person so much, because they can't really live off what they get at the moment anyway!

Interesting comments. I find it facinating how those who actually work to make money are expected to do more while those who won't work are expected not to do anything at all. I say not expected because I don't hear anyone screaming "why don't we get them to work as well". But of course, those who are not working can only be one thing or the other, lazy or unable to.

They already do.  To the tune of over 50%.  They pay TEN times what the rest pay.  How is that unfair? (Well to them it sure is since they are not getting 10 times the benefit).

I find it fascinating that the entire country is in the shitter and the only thing you can do about it is bicker about who should foot the bill – the people who can't afford it unless they sell a child for medical experiments, throw the other in the sea and don't eat for 3 weeks, or the people who can't have their morning Starbucks for two mornings each week. People do exist who work as hard (maybe harder) than any CEO in the US and simply don't make as much money. I mean, I exist, right?

ThinkAloud,

Very good analysis of what Reagan did ... cut taxes (prices/profit per item in your example) and realized more revenue as a result of the increased tax base (made more money).

Although I guess he got the idea from Kennedy.

It's good to see more people understand that concept.

Walmart does this when sell. They take a smaller % in the markup but the volume they sell makes up for the loss .

Volume has always been the aim--I suppose since the old white sales of Woolworth and Macy's--to reduce prices so that in the end you make more by thinking smarter and working harder. Model Ts, too, showed this in order to produce for the masses, not to mention the move to raise wages to make products more affordable. That's also the theme behind progressive taxes: indeed, spread the wealth to make more products available for the little guy and as TA suggested the rich still get richer.

Yea them wascally wepublicans!  Always stealing ideas from the democrats!

I ahve no issues with that as long as they are providing growth. Thats the bottom line for me. If most willing americans can find jobs that pays somewhat decent then no problems for me how rich people get. Each to thier own

First of all, let me say that your comments on this single post had more hopping than the easter Bunny. Couldn't figure out if you were against the person you were quoting or defending them on the next comment.

You didn't get anything straight in you analysis on my comments. Please tell me where I said anything about living with a rich person? I said that a person earning $100 a week is more likely someone like a teen living with his parents or in a college dorm where they pay little or no bills, or maybe an adult who live with their parents, has several roommates or livings in an efficiency (highly unlikely with that kind of pay) and either pays little or no bills or splits the bills. In the end, no one could live with a $100 paycheck a week, not unless you are extremely poor, homeless and live in some kind of shelter where they helped you get a job or something but that is extreme and not the average American. This isn't about leeching, it's about how someone with a $100 a week paycheck is more likely to be living with someone else sharing in the bills and rent. I did write in English, not Chinese.

You do realize that not only do poor people get taxed very little but on top of that they get all of it back and then some. So please tell me what the hell is anyone complaining about. What they need to do is get their asses in gear and find better jobs or create jobs and stop BSing people. I stopped being dependent of my parents when I was 18. Lazy ass people making $100 a week need to stop depending on others and work harder for themselves.

Isnt that amazing that some one had to explain that to him?!!!!!

unfortunately, you make a similar mistake !!!!

why 48 hrs and why 96 hrs ???!!!!....

the basics still the same ... no change in hrs worked for anyone...

where did that come from?

it is amazing that people talk about these issues and then you have to explain to them every little bit of the argument !!!!!

if you cant grasp the idea i presented in a very simple terms .. then there is no hope that you will ever understand the argument..

i guess that is why so many are deceived by the slogan "Cut Txes on the rich" ... of course it sounds good ... who doesnt want to keep more of his paycheck ... until you realize ... usually a year later, that you lost your job after that "Tax Cut" .... because the demand for the product you were making dropped and the busn no longer needs you. at that time the busn owner is making that $1000 instead of the $2000 he was making when the demand was higher and you were there to produce it.

after the tax cut for the rich , his income dropped to $1000 (multiply it by 10 to the nth power of you like) instead of the $2000.

it is not that you worked 48 hrs to make 1000 then worked 96 to make 2000 !!!!!

it is not you making $100/wk or $500/wk .... use any multiplier your head desires ... it is the same thing....

if you cant see what is happening now and how consumers are cutting on their purchases as a result of stretched budgets after 8 yrs of tax cuts for rich, i dont know what else will convince you?????

As a result of busn not giving people enough raises (look at how much the avrg income decreased in the last 8 yrs) despite the tax cut they got,  consumers stretched their budgets till it is all to the limit now. ....

with all that tax cuts for the rich... where are the jobs that was supposed to be created as a result?

compare that to 24 million jobs during Clinton yrs DESPITE the fact he increased taxes mostly on the rich..... and most of those jobs were created after the tax increase of 94 .... even Bush senior ... raised taxes on the rich to fix job losses ... and Reagan did the same after his initial tax cut that resulted in 82 recession

you know why there were no jobs created after those 3 tax cuts for the rich and lots of them were created after each time Reagan, Bush I and clinton reversed some of that cut?

here is why:

It is a Myth that tax cuts for the rich  create jobs ... designed to fool people ... who get sooo happy with $500/yr less in taxes ... but they lose their entire pay check in a yr or so ...

the proof of that statement above is very simple: it is a fundamental principle in capatalism that you NEVER EVER higher anyone just because you have more money !!!!!

just because the busn owner or rich people have more money because of the tax cut, no one will ever higher anyone unless there is a need to produce more. and the rich increase their spending by very little and mainly on luxury items which is not the spine of the economy.

but due to the tax cut for the rich, local services get cut or people pay more for it, education costs more, local taxes increase, and middle class and the working poor people start to cut on their spending to meet those increased expenses ...

that is how the demand for goods and services decreases after each tax cut for the rich .... and that is how the economy starts to slow and you lose your job ....

if busn give the poor and the middle class more raises Or the government increase taxes on the rich to pay some of the cost of services for the poor and middle class, they will spend that extra money on goods and energize the economy ...

did you see any energizing of the market after BushII tax cut?

it resulted in what they called a "Jobless Recovery" ....... busn and rich people made more ... but there were no jobs created and the economy just staggered along untill it finally collapsed

what other proof you need !!!!!!

Nice try !!!

In the beginning yes it did ... till recession of 81/82 started .. then he was forced to increase it on the rich ... bush I did the same thing (and lost election because of it) ...

I am not against ALL tax cuts ... you must understood that by now ... i am talking about "Tax Cut for the Rich" as Bush II is ... tax cut for the middle class and the working poor is the engine to increase demand .... ( and for those who think i am a beneficiary of this kind of tax cuts .... i am sorry to tell you i and every one in my immediate family are paying taxes through the nose ... why sorry?? because i hate paying those taxes too ... it is just i know either that or i will get paid less or lose my job ... that is why?)

my argument is answering those who keep crying for the rich (and the Gov considers me rich ... which is the funniest joke i ever heard) .... because they pay more in taxes ...

stop fooling people .... if we dont pay more we will get less ... it is as simple as that.

like they say ... money makes money ... i pay more in taxes but i  get paid more than i would if i didnt .... or may be i will lose my job completely....

They know that you exist ... but according to them it is your fault that you are not smart enough to make lots of money ... ( btw, these are the same people who make Joe the Plumber their hero) ...

and if you have to throw your kids in the sea and dont eat for 3 weeks ... so what? that is life, tough luck... the constitution doesnt give you the right to easy life

The stupidity of that position is beyond belief !!!!! it is a self-destructive position ... their greed is clouding their eyes to the fact that by doing that they are cutting their own throats ... it just happens after a while .... and by the time it happens they will always come up with an excuse other than their stupidity ...

and the sad fact is .. most people believe that ... they forget the real reason for the trouble ... and they defend them ... all because of $500/yr less in taxes (they get that fast) even if it costs them their job after a year !!!!! and that is the problem ... a year is a loooong time for many people .... for them there is no connection between "Cut taxes for the rich/ I lose my job" ... that connection is not obvious or clear to them .... and that is what the "trickle down economics" rely on ... ignorance and short memory .... what a fatal combination !!!!

They even go further than that and convince people that the connection "Cut taxes for the rich/ I get/keep my job" is a real one not a fallacy while it is the exact opposite ... (see previous comment for proof of that fallacy)

Thnk... you for some reason support more taxes so why on earth would you give the politicans more money to waste? Why on gods green earth would you want to do this? are you not sick of them tossing money left and right for no real benifit except to those that dont need or deserve it?

Look I have no issues with more taxes if they are put to good use... none of this over budget crap.... non of this helping the illegals ....

As for the groth thing I think that tax breaks should include that.... i mean what better way to incourage growth besides tax breaks? I would invest ever single dime I had into the buesness if that was the case.