Should US wealth be redistributed?

[abowers]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't make a lot of money, as I just graduated from college with a degree in psychology and am just working as a preschool teacher until I start grad school... but I don't know that the wealthy should be taxed anymore -- they already pay a HUGE portion of the taxes, and some have legitimately earned their salaries! I.e. my significant other's dad -- who has worked at the same company for 25 years as an engineer and is making 6 figures. he pays a RIDICULOUS amount in taxes. Our taxes already go to pay for a lot of services for the less fortunate. Even with my low salary, I'm losing 20% of it to taxes!! The government needs to use money from taxes more efficiently.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I thought I'd do a little research into this assertion of yours to the current top 10 of the Forbes rich list.

Bill Gates - He may have had assistance by his family but I doubt you'll find an entrepreneur who hasn't had this in some form. It doesn't take anything away from their achievement because his wealth has been earnt, not inherited.

Warren Buffet - Infamously started as a newspaper delivery boy and has since become a self made billionaire.

Paul Allen - Dropped out from uni with Bill Gates to form Microsoft. Has since invested in a range of other businesses and is a regular philanthropist.

Michael Dell - Started selling computers from his university dorm room, has since gone on to head the worlds best selling PC company.

Larry Ellison - founded Oracle in 1977 and has grown it to become the largest enterprise software company in the world.

So none of the top five so far have inherited the wealth they now have.

The next five are all members of the Walton family, so in that sense their wealth is inherited but remember that WalMart began as one solitary store before it grew into the behemouth it is today so the family wealth was created if not by the individuals currently in the Top 10.

Doesn't really support your argument too well VJW.

Well, since I had presented facts and not an “argument”, and the reference was to 86% of 400, not 86% of 10, your assertion is rather silly.

Not to mention that Buffet, as well as many others, have clearly stated that it was the many benefits of American society which supported their success. The very kind of benefits that you oppose.
.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't make a lot of money, as I just graduated from college with a degree in psychology and am just working as a preschool teacher until I start grad school... but I don't know that the wealthy should be taxed anymore -- they already pay a HUGE portion of the taxes

Because a huge portion of the nation’s income flows to them. The wealthy still don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden proportionate to their share of the income.

Our taxes already go to pay for a lot of services for the less fortunate.

Actually not.

Unless you consider welfare to corporations as “services for the less fortunate”.

Even with my low salary, I'm losing 20% of it to taxes!!

You have obviously calculated incorrectly. Almost 80% of taxpayers pay 5% or less in federal income taxes.

#

[dealsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't make a lot of money, as I just graduated from college with a degree in psychology and am just working as a preschool teacher until I start grad school... but I don't know that the wealthy should be taxed anymore -- they already pay a HUGE portion of the taxes, and some have legitimately earned their salaries! I.e. my significant other's dad -- who has worked at the same company for 25 years as an engineer and is making 6 figures. he pays a RIDICULOUS amount in taxes. Our taxes already go to pay for a lot of services for the less fortunate. Even with my low salary, I'm losing 20% of it to taxes!! The government needs to use money from taxes more efficiently.

They just need to use less of it to begin with.

Few people are bright enough to figure out how much they actually pay in taxes every year. Payroll taxes, Federal and State income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, real or imputed property tax, etc. add up. Even on a modest salary people often underestimate their total tax liability. Wealth is redistrubuted in this country way too much. Most people don't even realize how much they are paying to enrich others at their own expense because of the all the different ways in which they are taxed. If people recieved a year end summary of all the taxes they paid, there would be more momentum behind tax and spending reform.

[abowers]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Because a huge portion of the nation’s income flows to them. The wealthy still don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden proportionate to their share of the income.





Actually not.

Unless you consider welfare to corporations as “services for the less fortunate”.

-- I am referring to welfare to people, not to corporations. I did the social worker thing for a couple of years. I saw many families on welfare that miraculously had i.e. - A LARGE plasma TV, -a New Ford Expedition *with* personalized license plates with her name on them (2 different families, same low income ghetto apartment complex).




You have obviously calculated incorrectly. Almost 80% of taxpayers pay 5% or less in federal income taxes.

#

-- I am not talking about strictly federal income taxes, I know that is a smaller percentage. I lose 19-20% of my paycheck to social security, state, and federal taxes, and miscellaneous other taxes (there are like 5 different categories).

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

You should come to Britain VJW. Here the average person loses around 30% of their income to taxes, and our government still don't have enough money so will have to raise them even further.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

-- I am not talking about strictly federal income taxes, I know that is a smaller percentage.

That’s nonsensical, as federal income taxes taxes represent far and away the largest bite, and as I posted, almost 80% of taxpayers pay 5% or less in federal income taxes.

#

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't think it will work. Here's why:

"Research suggests that when people grow up in unfortunate social situations--where they're not treated very nicely by their parents or when they experience poverty or even the threat of death," says Kasser, "they become more materialistic as a way to adapt."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/discontents.html

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Other factors that contribute to poverty:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/maxed.html

1. Locus of control
2. Self efficacy
3. Debt tolerant attitudes

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't think it will work. Here's why:

"Research suggests that when people grow up in unfortunate social situations--where they're not treated very nicely by their parents or when they experience poverty or even the threat of death," says Kasser, "they become more materialistic as a way to adapt."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/discontents.html

I'm not sure how this applies. Are you saying that people who are now "rich" will be violent to maintain their level of materialism? Or that "poor" people will get the money and just spend, spend, spend and never stop?

I don't advocate equalizing wealth completely, but I do advocate some equalization. There is no way I can possibly be convinced that a CEO is worth 100s of times more than the lowest paid employee. The only reason they can half justify it is because they've all gotten together and agreed to pay each other and their friends that much setting up the "standard wage". And the problem is - most very affluent people don't spend their money in the US - they fly to other countries - on non-domestic carriers and buy their goods there, and usually fudge how much they bought when coming back so they don't pay import taxes. So, we have the poor doing more to stimulate the economy in proportion.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Another great article detailing the cycle:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/sp.html

1) Marketing and social comparison makes poor people unhappy
2) Marketing tells poor people that they can fix the problem with the newest gadget
3) Poor people . . .
a) Run out and buy it, getting further into debt, sacrificing necessities to make ends meet. Not having necessities impacts family relations, self-esteem, locus of control, cognitive and life functioning etc. All of these things contribute to poorer decision making, which in turn make them more vulnerable to marketing and social comparison.
b) Or they don't buy it. Which makes them feel miserable and deprived. They look around at other people who have the gadget and feel more miserable and deprived. So miserable, that they are all the more vulnerable to the next marketing campaign.

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't get how that applies to this discussion. Period.

I live in one of the poorest areas in the country. Consumerism is not rampant. People are less materialistic here than anywhere I've ever lived. When they get money, they don't run out to buy, buy, buy. They put some toward paying on their house, some toward future college funds and some to buy something they've been wanting.

No, the people I see doing the buy, buy, buy thing is people who should have plenty of money. When I did collections I saw 2 types of people (I did legal collections for citibank) 1) people who made minimum wage and used their card to buy groceries and gas and 2) people who made well over $60k per year who used the card for toys and travel (this was in OK, $60k was extremely comfortable). I rarely saw an in between and when I did see an in between, further research showed a job loss of several months to a year and just starting a new job.

That doesn't mean that "poor" people don't have an item that says "making it" to them. Like $100 air jordans (when I was in HS) or cadillacs. But I've never seen the "blow every dime I get because I've been without and now I have it" IRL.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I'm not sure how this applies. Are you saying that people who are now "rich" will be violent to maintain their level of materialism? Or that "poor" people will get the money and just spend, spend, spend and never stop?

I'm saying that being poor is more than just having an empty wallet and nothing in your bank account. There is also a state of mind and a variety of coping mechanisms associated with poverty. Even if every poor person on the planet won the lottery, the next year they'd be back where they started.

If you don't believe me, look at all the things urban poor people attribute to a lack of education (ie something external that they can't control): the spread of STIs, SIDS, obeisity, drug use, asthma/allergies, low birth weight babies, neglect of seniors, crime, child abuse, exploitation of women. Do you really buy the fact that they just don't "know" about these things? Of course they know. The thing is, they don't want to know, because if they knew, they'd have to do something.

This of course doesn't apply to the newly laid off or the working poor who are doing everything they can to stay above water. I'm talking about the folks who spend more on beer than they do on food, the folks who buy their kids french fries and x-box games with the rent money, the folks that buy Range Rovers at 0% down and put the first payment on the card, the folks that spend a week in Vegas, but don't have enough money to pay the babysitter, the folks wearing $200 tennis shoes, but don't have enough money for the bus. It's the whole never-got-over-being-a-teenager/giant-infant song and dance. These folks are beyond help.

I have no idea what the working poor would do with money. But there are so many folks beyond help, no amount of money could fix those problems.

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

That's so full of it.

You've gone over to exaggeration. Poor people who win the lottery do not end up back in abject poverty in a year. There have been many lottery winners. Some of them do end up borrowing against the payments (in states where they do structured payouts) but they have a home, etc they never had before.

I also find it insulting to say they don't know because they don't want to do anything about it. For many people it isnt' something they've internalized yet. And many people can't do anything about it if they want to. Low birth weight? That's a function of affording good food and having good prenatal care. Something many people in poverty can't do.

[jnsaver]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

But I've never seen the "blow every dime I get because I've been without and now I have it" IRL.

Maybe you never see it in OK. It's a different kind of poverty though. In OK, money goes a lot further than it does in a major city or on a coast. Also, isn't OK a relatively good place to be poor? In OK, being poor doesn't mean you grew up in the midst of abuse, it doesn't mean your parents were taking drugs, it doesn't mean you lacked anything other than money.

But pay attention to places where it sucks to be poor. Pay attention to hip hop culture. Pay attention to people who just got out of jail. Pay attention to urban youth. Pay attention to the local drug dealer on the corner, the hippie that lives down stairs, the guy with AIDS at the coffee shop, the prostitute trying not to make eye contact with the dealer on the corner. Pay attention to all the formerly abused college kids with shiny new credit cards, the molested dropout trying to make it big with get rich quick schemes. Redistribution of wealth will never make that better.