wealth distribution

[m3racer]

I'm curious to know if the people on this board believe in wealth redistribution. Is it ok for higher income earners to have to pay higher taxes than those who make less? Is Obama's plan to increase taxes to 39% from 37% for those that make >$250k ok?

[m3racer]

I meant wealth redistribution....or maybe socialism?

[maat55]

I think the tax structure is unfair as it stands, but if Obama wants to raise taxes, he should do it the same across the board. It won't piss me off anymore, I already don't like him.

[m3racer]

Does the average American have animosity toward those that earn a higher income.

[maat55]

Does the average American have animosity toward those that earn a higher income.

I think class envy is pushed in certain medias. I think only the uneducated, lazy and agenda based liberals, have the animosity.

[jIM_Ohio]

Social security is wealth resdistribution at its finest.

Money is taken from everyone (6.2%) of first 97.5k.

Anyone which makes too much money has this benefit taxed at 50% when they go to collect.

I am opposed to wealth redistribution in just about any form. If you want money, make it and save it yourself.

I am not opposed to social security, I am just opposed to it being
a) taxed if you earn too much
b) being given to everyone as a "stated benefit"

meaning remove the 50% tax or remove the requirement every tax payer can expect to get it and the system will work better.

I prefer to remove b)- stop giving SS to everyone and the 6.2% tax we pay will go down or at minimum stop going up.

[bjl584]

I think that a graduated tax system essentially punishes risk taking and success. A flat tax would be better. Repealing the 16th Amendment would be better still.

[kork13]

Social security is wealth resdistribution at its finest.

I am not opposed to social security, I am just opposed to it being
a) taxed if you earn too much
b) being given to everyone as a "stated benefit"

I prefer to remove b)- stop giving SS to everyone and the 6.2% tax we pay will go down or at minimum stop going up.

Personally, I see SS dying within my lifetime. In my retirement planning, I'm assuming I won't receive it. Because there are more people retiring than are paying in (or not enough is being paid in), right now we're all basically paying SS for our parents--not ourselves, as is the idea.

Best (most acceptable) way I see SS going away: they say no one born after (ex) 1995 (to cut it off at an age where no one after then will have paid anything into it yet) will receive any SS benefit, nor pay anything into it. All born before then will still pay a slowly decreasing percentage into it. Also, those people will also receive a decreasing level of SS benefits. By the time those who have at any time paid into it get to retiring, they can finish off the last funds the SS system has (if any), and we can be rid of the rubbish.

[jIM_Ohio]

Personally, I see SS dying within my lifetime. In my retirement planning, I'm assuming I won't receive it. Because there are more people retiring than are paying in (or not enough is being paid in), right now we're all basically paying SS for our parents--not ourselves, as is the idea.

Best (most acceptable) way I see SS going away: they say no one born after (ex) 1995 (to cut it off at an age where no one after then will have paid anything into it yet) will receive any SS benefit, nor pay anything into it. All born before then will still pay a slowly decreasing percentage into it. Also, those people will also receive a decreasing level of SS benefits. By the time those who have at any time paid into it get to retiring, they can finish off the last funds the SS system has (if any), and we can be rid of the rubbish.

I could pretty much guarantee any elected official in congress, the senate or white house would not get reelected if this passed.

There would be a group somewhere which contributed 6% and got nothing.

Plus remember SS is more than a retirement system- it is an insurance system- meaning some people collect SS because of a disability or similar insurance event. A girl I went to HS with collected SS because her father (a police officer) was killed in the line of duty.

Eliminating the system is a pipe dream.

[asmom]

Oh! I thought this topic was about the government using our taxpayers' dollars to bail out the corporations.

[kork13]

I could pretty much guarantee any elected official in congress, the senate or white house would not get reelected if this passed.

Thus the reason it never will happen... no senator or representative is gonna endanger their cushy D.C. job to simply eliminate a troublesome program.

Eliminating the system is a pipe dream.

Sadly, I think you're right.

Oh! I thought this topic was about the government using our taxpayers' dollars to bail out the corporations.

Sorry, that may be my fault.... we're really good at tangents around here....

[sweeps]

I'm curious to know if the people on this board believe in wealth redistribution.

*raises hand*

[maat55]

Redistribution to me is socialism. The American dream still exists, but the pocket pickers are growing between you and the bank.

[terry1156]

Here are my 2 cents:

The question itself is misleading. A 2% increase on the books doesn't mean a 2% increase for the wealthy. It doesn't matter because it's not really a redistribution. If you are making $250k a year, you can afford a good accountant that will make sure that you are not paying the full amount on your income.

This is never taken into account when people talk about taxes. They look only at the rates and not what people actually pay. Warren Buffet even said that he pays a lower percentage on what he makes than his secretary.

[kork13]

Here are my 2 cents:

The question itself is misleading. A 2% increase on the books doesn't mean a 2% increase for the wealthy. It doesn't matter because it's not really a redistribution. If you are making $250k a year, you can afford a good accountant that will make sure that you are not paying the full amount on your income.

This is never taken into account when people talk about taxes. They look only at the rates and not what people actually pay. Warren Buffet even said that he pays a lower percentage on what he makes than his secretary.

This is a completely separate issue to me, and one that ticks me off alot.... the fact that there are so many intricacies in the tax code, allowing those who know it well to pay less than they really should--whether they make $30,000/yr or $30,000,000/yr.... I'd like to see it simply be that "this is how much you owe, end of story". However, we've had this discussion before, and it seems unlikely that this will be fixed anytime soon (ever?).