Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Fuzz]

I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there.

Isn't wanting to be wealthy counter-intuitive to everything you have been arguing on here? Shouldn't all that money be redistributed to others because that would paying your fair share? Why on earth do you need to have that much money when others are starving?

Do you understand where I'm going? If you continue to argue for a more progressive tax code or that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share/ don't need private jets ect. yet have a plan or aspiration to be wealthy you are hypocritical at its finest but hey thats the liberal mantra "do as I say not as I do".

[nsplayr]

Isn't wanting to be wealthy counter-intuitive to everything you have been arguing on here? Shouldn't all that money be redistributed to others because that would paying your fair share? Why on earth do you need to have that much money when others are starving?

Do you understand where I'm going?

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Guest one]

We are getting away from the problem. It is not that 100 very wealthy Americans can hold 30% of America's wealth, it is that 100 million Americans can fall below the poverty line in a month's time.

Edited March 7, 2013 by one

[nsplayr]

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here.

What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent).

I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

So will you donate any extra wealth you make here outside of what you need to support your family to the government and charities? because that would be equally distributing wealth to other less fortunate, I mean you live pretty well as it is so why do you need anymore money?

[nsplayr]

So will you donate any extra wealth you make here outside of what you need to support your family to the government and charities? because that would be equally distributing wealth to other less fortunate, I mean you live pretty well as it is so why do you need anymore money?

That's not the point at all, although charity giving is an important thing I would hope everyone would ratchet up as they have more and more disposable income. The point is that the system writ large should be setup to encourage a more equal distribution of wealth. I happen to think a more equal distribution of wealth is healthier for our society, for our economy, and ultimately for our economic and national security and that our tax and regulatory systems could be changed to encourage those types of changes.

I happen to be one of the 90% of people who would like to see a more equal distribution...that doesn't mean perfectly equal or anything close to it. But MORE equal, that's something that has the support of 9 our of 10 Americans and so if you're the 1 of 10 who's ideal system is similar to our current one, perhaps it's you who should do the explaining.

90% of Americans aren't socialists/communists I'm pretty sure, although I'm sure those accusations are coming (and have been said before when this topic comes up).

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Guest one]

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here.

What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent).

I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

If the money that is accrued by the top 1% was split amongst every single man and woman equally, the inflation it would create would make the increase of "wealth" insignificant. The wealth they accrued is only worth anything if it is held and not spent. If we were on a gold standard things would be different but all of the "wealth" the top 1% controls is little more than numbers in a computer database owned by a bank.

Edited March 7, 2013 by one

[nsplayr]

If we were on a gold standard things would be different but all of the "wealth" the top 1% controls is little more than numbers in a computer database owned by a bank.

...and the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Decreasing wealth inequality need not be about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it can be about creating more wealth via economic growth. Because our government's tax and transfer policies are the largest factor in keeping even out insanely unequal wealth distribution in check, I happen to support policies that would make our tax system more progressive.

But beyond that narrow scope of government action, the bigger system should incentivize things that will allow for a strong middle class, good social mobility, and economic growth of the entire system. Your views on what policies will cause those things (or perhaps if they are even worthy goals) likely are heavily influenced by your political ideology.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Buddy Spike]

If the money that is accrued by the top 1% was split amongst every single man and woman equally, the inflation it would create would make the increase of "wealth" insignificant.

Winner. And this is why raising the minimum wage doesn't work.

[disgruntledemployee]

Instead of taxing it away, why don't you go to Bill Gates house and ask for a few Bil, then head over to Warren's hut and get a few more Bil. Then set up a line and give everyone 10 crisp Benjamins.

Point 1: lots of libs with lots of Bils, yet I don't see them redistributing it all to gov't or to the lowerlings.

Point 2: Class warefare is awesome!

Out

[HU&W]

Giving poor people the gift of money through redistribution of wealth does nothing to raise them above the poverty line (long term). It only does three things.

1: Temporarily assists with basic survival needs.

2: Creates a dependency on government handouts with an insatiable appetite for more.

3. Raises the poverty line through induced inflation to encompass all of the previous poor and more of the middle class.

There are other negative effects, but these are the ones that directly affect those welfare is supposed to help.

[Guest one]

...and the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Decreasing wealth inequality need not be about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it can be about creating more wealth via economic growth. Because our government's tax and transfer policies are the largest factor in keeping even out insanely unequal wealth distribution in check, I happen to support policies that would make our tax system more progressive.

But beyond that narrow scope of government action, the bigger system should incentivize things that will allow for a strong middle class, good social mobility, and economic growth of the entire system. Your views on what policies will cause those things (or perhaps if they are even worthy goals) likely are heavily influenced by your political ideology.

I am pretty moderate on my positions. I just don't believe it is possible to lessen poverty by taxing the top 1% alone. Small increases in taxes on the top 1% may help but a large increase would just weaken the dollar. Serious changes need to be made to our economic system as a whole but they have to be gradual changes over decades for the changes to do anything that will have a long lasting positive impact.

The government can do something even better than creating new taxes for the top 1%. It is much more important the government makes it easier and more profitable for the top 1% to keep as much of their accrued wealth in the United States without letting it leak into other countries like China and India.

[nsplayr]

I am pretty moderate on my positions. I just don't believe it is possible to lessen poverty by taxing the top 1% alone. Small increases in taxes on the top 1% may help but a large increase would just weaken the dollar. Serious changes need to be made to our economic system as a whole but they have to be gradual changes over decades for the changes to do anything that will have a long lasting positive impact.

Agreed. Emphasis added.

The government can do something even better than creating new taxes for the top 1%. It is much more important the government makes it easier and more profitable for the top 1% to keep as much of their accrued wealth in the United States without letting it leak into other countries like China and India.

This can be part of it for sure.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

You are still missing my point if you are for equitable redistribution why not lead the way, if you do become wealthy? You are so in favor of taking other people's money, why not give up yours if do believe this so much.

[nsplayr]

You are still missing my point if you are for equitable redistribution why not lead the way, if you do become wealthy? You are so in favor of taking other people's money, why not give up yours if do believe this so much.

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[Day Man]

what is the incentive for those on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth to wean themselves off of it?

Edited March 7, 2013 by day man

[Fuzz]

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

No by lead the way I mean cut a check to the government for the extra wealth you have because I mean you live pretty comfortable now right? Why do you need a bently or a multimillion dollar home when others are starving?

I see many rich democrats calling for redistribution of wealth but yet they have yachts, fancy cars ect., if you really believe in redistributing wealth why aren't they (or you if you become one) willing to open their books and give their excess money to the poor and needy?

Taxing to give money to others to "redistribute wealth" is taking money from one to give to the other. I understand the need to fund the military, Lewis enforcement, roads ect. Yes the government does need money to operate but the government should not take money from one person and give it to another.

[HU&W]

If by "lead the way" you mean advocate for a system-wide change while personally contributing to charity, sounds great, that's the plan.

And it's not about "taking other people's money," it's about using the government's powers of taxation, spending, regulation etc. to create a system that results in an overall national economic system that produces consistent growth, social mobility, and a more ideal distribution of wealth (in line with the wishes of the vast majority of citizens).

If all you see when you pay your taxes is "someone taking your money" then we really don't need to have this conversation about how the government, through policy, can shape the country's economy.

Your view of the role of government is greatly different than my view of government's role. Although your ideals are certainly noble, they're unsustainable in the long run and are economically damaging for all the reasons we've previously discussed. I don't have a problem with taxation, spending, or regulation. That's the how behind the government doing its job. The argument here is what the government's job is.

My view is that the government exists as the caretakers of our national community, to perform the tasks that individuals and smaller communities/business cannot do for themselves. These tasks include protection of individual liberties and agency/opportunity, provision for trade and commerce, defense from foreign and domestic threats, legislative and judicial oversight, assistance in recovery from grave disasters (beyond the scope and capability of local communities), developing/protecting baseline standards for national resources, interfacing with foreign nations, and other necessary tasks to administer their constitutional duties.

Redistribution of wealth, promoting populist agendas, and political brinkmanship are not core government duties. When politicians stretch the role of government beyond its basic purpose, unintended negative consequences always follow.

[nsplayr]

Yes the government does need money to operate but the government should not take money from one person and give it to another.

See below.

Your view of the role of government is greatly different than my view of government's role...The argument here is what the government's job is.

Amen...this is the BIG question behind much of this debate. Your view totally makes sense depending on what your values and political beliefs are and I think mine does as well. I certainly know what I believe the role of government to be, and you're free to feel differently; it's something that will continually be renegotiated as history marches on via elections, changing government policies, and the changing views of new generations of citizens.

My view is that the government exists as the caretakers of our national community, to perform the tasks that individuals and smaller communities/business cannot do for themselves. These tasks include protection of individual liberties and agency/opportunity, provision for trade and commerce, defense from foreign and domestic threats, legislative and judicial oversight, assistance in recovery from grave disasters (beyond the scope and capability of local communities), developing/protecting baseline standards for national resources, interfacing with foreign nations, and other necessary tasks to administer their constitutional duties.

Good summation of the conservative/libertarian viewpoint on the role of government

Edited March 7, 2013 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

If everybody is wealthy, no one is.

Just like, if everyone is a special snowflake, no one is.

[Dupe]

If everybody is wealthy, no one is.

Except that we are very very far from equal wealth:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[Fuzz]

Except that we are very very far from equal wealth:

https://m.youtube.com...h?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Allow me to introduce you to post #613

Here's an interesting video depicting a visual representation of the distribution of wealth in the US. While bearing in mind numbers, statistics, graphs, charts, etc., can be manipulated to support an argument, It's still a little suprising.

[Dupe]

Ok...buffoonery on my part.

[Learjetter]

Except that we are very very far from equal wealth:

The goal is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

[Vertigo]

what is the incentive for those on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth to wean themselves off of it?

Currently there is none in certain instances. If a single mother with two kids under school age is on TANF and food stamps and stays at home to care for her kids she has no incentive to go out and start at the bottom of the ladder because she'll be worse off after paying for daycare.

If, however, there was a procedure in place that would allow her to work while receiving those benefits, with that benefit reducing as she moved up the pay scale- then they'll have an incentive to work: more $$.

Now that assumes, of course, employers are offering a system that will allow for advancement up a pay scale... and a lot of menial labor jobs don't have that system.

It's a complex situation, and how we work our way out of it is even more complex.