Why Redistributing Wealth (taxing) is the only way to save our Democracy

That suits me just fine as well, except the only problem is the rich are already experts at avoiding income tax.

Well said. the working class has to become aware that they can change the tax laws. please search for unitedstatesalliance on facebook.com.
We are trying to promote a national referendum on two propositions.

The Personal Wealth Act (PWA) proposes:
1. abolish all income taxes and capital gains taxes
2. place a 100% tax on all personal wealth over 1 million dollars on a yearly basis

The Unemployment, Medical Insurance and Retirement Benefit Act (UMIRBA) proposes:
1. To provide the unemployed, ages 19 and over, the elderly and the disabled with weekly cash assistance equal to 40 hours minimum wages.
2. To provide full medical and hospital care with medication included, free of charge to all citizens.

I am a liberal and there is NO way I would support a carte blanche weekly cash assistance equal to 40 hours of minimum wage. NO WAY.

Why not, hammywill? Can you be more specific?

By more specific, I am not sure what you are asking. I am saying that there is no way I would support just handing out cash to people with no strings attached. It needs to be linked to getting an education, looking for a job, doing community service, etc. Primarily, I would like to see it linked to education.

I think all of that is implied, Hammywill. What we've done up to very recently is give out unemployment benefits WITHOUT making people look for jobs.

The United States Alliance is proposing to provide unemployment benefits while requiring recipients to make 5 job attempts a week, otherwise forfeit a weeks benefits.

Does that sound more agreeable?

History does not agree with you popper...

But the problem is there are plenty of people going out there and getting it. But they have to pay income taxes on shitty pay and their only real hope of securing a comfortable lifestyle that isn't paycheck to paycheck is inventing the next as-seen-on- TV crap or hitting the lottery.

Americans have to realize, once again that they are in control of the gov't.

Statistically speaking you have a greater chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than becoming rich in the U.S.

Very clever, and correct. There already is a separate tax schedule for trusts like that and they pay the highest taxes of any group. In 2009, any taxable trust income over $10,700 is taxed at 35% on each additional dollar.

Like who, for example? And how would you go about making that distinction legalistically?

The people who contribute most to society are often the people who demand the least. Massive incentives only motivate the selfish and greedy.

Again I hate to agree with You but yes that is what should have happen.

your right about that, but then again -- it's not about helping the economy it's about empowering the federal govnment. The whole damn thing is a dog and pony show put on so the american people can be loosed from their money, freedom and individuality.
I feel great pity on those who buy the propaganda that it is the fault of corps or successful people or wall street --- it is govnment clamoring for the money and control of wall street and oil companies and insurance companies and banks and auto companies that prompts them to play these games to shift focus off of their greedy failed policies. they broke it and will require more power and money to fix what they broke, they repeat this cycle over and over.
BTW redistribution will turn this into a poor 3rd world socialist country. VIVA CAPITALISM

"I love to beat the slaves and have them fondle me through my breeches. Nothing in life is so glorious as whipping a slave bloody!" -- James Madison

Not everything the Found Fathers said is brilliant and/or even applicable in the 21st century.

These were just regular guys, not gods, so we shouldn't look to them too often for practical advice on how to govern.

Governing a country of 1 million TOTAL citizens in the late 1700's is a helluva lot different then governing a super-state/world power of 300 million (plus!) in 2009.

I mean.....what exactly was George Washington's position on legalizing illegal immigrants sneaking in from Mexico? What was John Adams solution on how to deal with illegal immigrant parents who have children born here in the US? Did he want to send ALL of them back or just the parents or allow all of them to stay? What did Thomas Jefferson have to say about the legality of using pilotless drones to invade Pakistani airspace to pursue terrorists when we were only given permission to use troops in nearby territory?

Things were a helluva lot simplier in 1780.

Let's not pretend that the "Fondling" quote is an actual historic quote by James Madison...HOWEVER...I don't really care what James Madison said. I will take it into consideration, but it will carry no greater weight than anyone elses opinion.

Well put Saladin, well put.

I'm definitely at odds with the very very broad stroke of a statement that people do not earn their fortunes. On the other side I wouldn't agree either that every millionaire deserves his/her level of wealth.

The entrepreneur and the business owner goes out on his own to find his/her own fortune by making a bet on his/her own skills. If that bet pays off, good on them. If it pays off big, doubly good for them . . . but why should we be jealous and covetous of another's good fortune? Take J.K. Rowling for example, a self made billionaire. This woman created a product/entity, the Harry Potter franchise, that half the world wants a piece of. Why shouldn't she reap the reward from her own talents . . . why should we be jealous and feel entitled to the fruits of her labor and talents?

These individuals (entrepreneurs, business owners) DO earn their own wealth . . . and if they hit the jackpot when betting on their own talents, good for them.

The administrators that you speak of (chancelors, CEO's, etc.) are a different group of people. These people are not creating anything from scratch, but instead are managing the growth of an entity. There is an enormous amount of responsibility on the shoulders of these people as they are ultimately responsible for the functioning of the entire entity . . . and this should be a high paying position to attract quality people.

However, I do think it is an irresponsible use of resources to contract out the high end administration positions at the multi-million dollar pay scale. You can find the same quality of an administrator for 300-500k as you could for 2m.

This group of people is being contracted by an entity to run it, and the entity is being foolish by grossly overpaying for the (albeit valuable) service. With public institutions that are funded by tax dollars (like colleges), there very much should be a salary cap.

When it comes to businesses, it's ultimately up to the business to run itself efficiently . . . in terms of publicly owned companies on the stock exchange, the shareholders should have greater control in determining the salary caps of the officers in the company.

But the broad stroke statement of categorizing all the million/billionaires into a single category is far to simplistic and fundamentally incorrect.

There are some people that are being overpaid for their contracted services, but for the people that employ themselves and bet on their own talents . . . to them I say the sky is the limit.

When I said taxation had nothing to do with how hard they work, I didn't mean that rich people don't work hard.

When I said it taxation has nothing to do with how hard they work, I mean that the labor it required to earn (or not earn) a fortune shouldn't even be CONSIDERED.

Straight up, not relevant.

And why is it always the rich who "earn" their fortunes? No one else does? No one else works to the bone to produce their own value?

The entrepreneur who "risks it all" earns his money but the factory worker who works with machines that could tear his limbs off in the blink of an eye doesn't?

And what does any of that have to do with taxation?

You've ignored the crux of my point.

You tax people who can afford to be taxed, you DON'T tax people who CAN'T. That's all, that's the only real point I was making.

It's not as if the rich have dome something extra that should make them off limits for taxation nor have they done something terrible that makes them deserving of extra taxation.

They just have more fucking money, and therefore don't really need to worry about much compared to someone who's living on a subsistence level paycheck-to-paycheck.

And you mentioning J.K. Rowling is a perfect example of why ideology fucks up this issue so much.

So she writes a book that a lot of people like and charges 20 bucks a pop for it. That means that somehow she shouldn't be taxed like everyone else?

What about everyone else that made writing her book possible? What about the vast advertising and art agencies that brought her book up out of the ocean of equal (if not superior) fiction out there or the factory workers that worked the presses to ensure the books could be sold in the first place?

Even though their involvement was crucial to her success, those people have been so externalized as a cost that they might as well have not been working on it -at all-.

Rowling would not have been able to make her fortune without relying on a vast system of infrastructure built to support her endeavors and externalize the real cost of production along with the copyright laws that protect her property.

This is what is called the myth of the individual, a fairy tale desperately grasped onto by Americans in an age when success is judged by capital instead of the quality of the actual good produced.

Rowling's success is completely arbitrary, there are plenty of extraordinarily talented artists who get shafted for one reason or another. If you think about it, even our use of the word "fortune" is an ironic one, considering that older generations attributed that word to the random chance of the world and we consider it a personal achievement.

The point is simple, I don't care if AIG pays the employees that burned their company to the ground 20 million dollar bonuses. Like you said, that's their free will.

What I do care about is some ass claiming people like that are "entitled" to their fortunes while the rest of us, who have apparently slept-walked our way through life shitting money, are entitled to be taxed into the fucking earth.

Not to sound like a broken record, but it bears repeating until the point drives home.

The issue is simple as hell. You don't overburden people who are trying to work their way up the ladder and you don't give people a break who have enough money to run small countries.

All other rhetoric is mindless nonsense. If you have more money, you pay more taxes. If you have jack shit, you shouldn't have to fork over your bread money.

As much as anti-tax campaigners and "rugged individualists" love to pretend otherwise, we are all part of a society and a civilization which constantly supports one another. The idea that "the more talented among us" (like the yard gnome entrepreneur who is clearly more important than the sanitation worker) should somehow pay less simply because of the size of their fortune is utter madness.

There are other concepts I could get into, but this too long already.

"The logic is simple, ignore ALL the conservative pretend bullshit about people 'earning' their obscene fortunes." -That was the part of your comment I was at odds with and responded to. Along with using an overpaid administrator to represent the whole of the "upper class".

As for taxation, the wealthy DO have a higher percentage of their income taxed, however capital gains is relatively low at 15% (which is due to rise to 20% in 2011). If your talking about loopholes, I'm certainly in favor of closing loop holes that allow for tax evasion . . . you'll get no argument from me there.

I didn't say that the average working person doesn't earn their income, I'd never say that. Deriving that I must think that the poor/middle classes do not earn their incomes solely because I'm defending that many of the wealthy DO earn their incomes (which you denied by saying that it's bullshit that people "earn" these "obscene" fortunes) . . . well that derivation is bullshit, it's a very poor use of logic, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth.

Of COURSE the factory worker, teacher, construction worker earns his income. I didn't address that because no one questions that. However, several people on this thread (including you) DID question whether or not the wealthy have earned their income.

JK Rowling "created" Harry Potter and holds the rights to that creation, and rightfully so. Anyone that wants to make money off of her creation should certainly pay her a percentage in royalties. It could have been any publisher/illustrator/advertising firm she could have contracted (those pieces are interchangeable) . . . but ultimately without the individual of Ms Rowling, there would be no Harry Potter. So no, the individual is not a myth.

Just because she contracts other people to help with the development oh her creation . . . that does NOT make it a group collaboration of evenly distributed importance and value. That is a major red herring in all the talk surrounding collectivism.

I heard your overlying point the first time, and I didn't/don't object to it (not commenting is not the same as ignoring). If you want to to talk about readjusting the tax scale, fine that's overdue. You want to close the loopholes and tax shelters, by all means they should be closed. The wealthy is SUPPOSED to pay a higher percentage in taxes . . . I don't object to any of that (as long as we aren't going to go nuts with 50+% income taxes or anything ridiculous like that).

My objection is to the underlying caricature of the "wealthy class" being a parasitic class that is hoarding more wealth than it has earned because of the ideology that there is a collective entitlement to the fruits of an individual . . . that is my objection.

The richest 50% (defined as making over 65k) pay 100% of the taxes. The poorest 50% pay no federal income tax.

The top 1% pay 26% of the taxes in this country.

The top 5% of the wealth holders also own over 75% of the means of production. So they should pay a progressively higher tax. This is not rocket science.

Hell yes. +^d

+6d

I make less than $65,000 a year and I pay Federal Income Taxes (and no I do not get it all refunded to me at the end of the year, so don't try to play that silly trump card). So your statistic is simply made up bullshit.

The government has the right as the representation of the people.

No matter how hard you work, nobody has worked hard enough to earn a billion dollars. Except perhaps sweatshop workers overseas...

Numinant . . .

Earning wealth isn't solely done through sweat and manual labor. Earning wealth for those that seek their own fortune means putting their talents on the line and betting on those talents by taking risks that would make your stomach turn.

The family business back home is a 3rd gen lumberyard/home-center . . . and I can tell from your statements that you have absolutely no idea what it really means to run your own business that has almost all of your capital tied into it, along with your family's livelihood.

I didn't say anything against entrepreneurs or small business owners and the like. All I said was that nobody, however hard they've worked, has, in my view, done enough to earn a billion dollars. I make sweatshop workers the exception because they're essentially indentured slaves. But that last statement is hyperbolic. All I meant was that they've suffered for the "good of the economy" more than anyone, and are thus the most deserving of compensation.

lucidstone im with you the poor have it so easy. having no capital tied up and not caring about your family livelihood that sounds good to me.

In my life I have been poor then rich and poor then rich and then poor once more. I know dozens more that would of fought a good fight like I did if they had a chance. So from what I have seen I think it would be best to make it easier to become rich not easier to be rich. And the man that started that 3rd gen lumberyard/home-center that you talk of I think he would say the same. That man made a bigger step then you ever will you are now just living the life he made for you and saying its so hard.

to: Numinant

So my question to you is, if someone makes the gamble on their own talents (entrepreneur/business owner) why shouldn't they get the rewards of that gamble if it pays off?

to: Standabove

If you look back at my text and reread it, you'll see nothing in there that says or even implies that the poor have it easy. I didn't address the poor at all. I was solely addressing how it is not an easy thing to make your own livelihood when you bet on yourself.

[and commenting on my background (that you know nothing about) makes yourself look like a douche that's talking out of his ass . . . my family is far FAR from being rich (I currently live on my own means of less than 20k as I put myself through grad school, without their financial backing) . . . so I laugh at your assumptions.]

To lucidstone Taking of taking risks that would make someone stomach to turn when you know nothing of that is just a bit of a assumption. And it is you that has absolutely no idea what it really means to run your own business that has almost all of your capital tied into it, along with your family's livelihood. Your first statement was a very nice story but I'm glad you told us the truth that you know nothing of what you talk. And your closer to the man that lives on the street then someone that is living the dream. Yet you fight to keep it that way thinking that one day you will live the dream if you just try.

For quite a few years before going into college, I worked for the family business . . . and I learned every aspect of the business, including the bits that you take home and worry about because your father placed the "entire" responsibility of one of the stores on your shoulders.

You worry about if you're making the right decisions that will ultimately help (or hurt) your family, you worry about a slowing state economy and what that's going to mean, you worry about cutting costs and staying in budget while trying to improve what you can with what you have, you worry about closing packages for contractors and securing bids for government and industrial projects . . . yeah, I learned that first hand, as if observing my father wasn't enough.

In the end, I left because I wanted something else for my life . . . and because no amount of money is worth that kind of "constant" worrying. In turn, I have absolutely no dreams of EVER going into business for myself, but I do very much respect those that do . . . lol, so please, try again. LoL, please please do continue to try and downplay experiences that you have absolutely zero knowledge of. =D

[Again, you make an asshat out of yourself with your assumptions . . . and I really can't help but laugh.]

I am afraid you have somewhat put your finger on it.

Well, in our defense, I would like to point out out that our leaders are less prone to murdering their families. And we have yet to have a leader who marries his horse...

Haha, indeed, we have yet to come across those...

First point, Rome was NOT a Democratic Republic. In a Democratic Republic the people vote for their representatives, the Representatives do not appoint their successors.

Second, I do not really care what the Constitution says, I care what the PEOPLE say.

You had to be a landowner to have a say in Rome... kind of like it was in this country for quite some time... it was a democratic republic. Romain writers often refered to the political matter as "of the people" or res publica... The term "democratic" was not used at the time though.

But Hammywill, the Constitution protects the people. Without it, women or blacks wouldn't be able to vote.

And it's not always about what the people say. There's a reason we elect our officials to figure our messes out for us.....

The constitution did not give women or blacks the right to vote, people did. The constitution initially treated blacks as non people, they were slaves and the Constitution protected the institution of slavery as well as disallowing the right of women to vote.

The biggest misunderstanding with constitutional understanding is the belief that the constitution grants us rights. In fact it does no such thing. The constitution was designed for two purposes, to RESTRICT government and to PROTECT rights.

Since the Constitution was created and instituted by men whose thoughts and "votes" so to speak, are no more valuable than my own and my neighboors.

The constitution is simply a piece of paper. An agreement made between men over 200 years ago. It does nothing by itself, it is the men and women alive today who uphold or change the principles and laws we live under.

Hammywill that might be the best self defeating argument I have ever seen... way to come full circle and shove your argument right back in your face...

/ignorance... making people shake their heads since.... forever

Hammywill, our interpreters of the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, read the protections and apply them to the people.

"The people" usually aren't very good at giving each other rights.... Try women's lib or the Civil Rights of the 60s, interracial marriage, or..... PROP 8.

The people aren't very good at governing themselves; that's why we elect officials to do the job for us.

Explain to me how the argument is self defeating. Don't simply make a statement without laying out your reasoning.

Randall: If you want to be governed by someone else, then have at it. I will govern myself thank you, and you have no right to govern me or anyone else.

You argue that the constitution does not give people rights, people give rights at the beginning... then you go on about a misunderstanding... then you state something about how people "uphold... the principles and laws we live under" ... which last time I checked is dictated by the constitution and it states the rights of the people in it.

Hence, nice self defeating argument...

/palm to forehead

The principles and laws we have today are not established in the constitution. They are established by us. Are you sure you can follow logic? Explain to me how the Constitution gives anyone rights? Or how the Constitution gave blacks the right to vote?

Your hopeless hammywill... go take a civics class... might I suggest poly sci 1 & 2 at a local university... they will have the patience to educate you, I am on the other hand not getting payed and do not care too.

PS... if a law is unconstitutional it is struck down!!! Think on that for a while, and take you medication.

That is the last thing you are getting from me.

Don't let the paranoia bugs bite...

I am not too sure you understand what I am saying, but that is alright. I'll drop it since you can not explain how the Constitution itself grants anyone the right to vote. A simple question.

Hammywill, you aren't really making any sense. We're all stating facts (you know, the way it IS).

What alternate realm do you live in?

Randall, what "fact" have you stated?

1.) we elect our officials to figure our messes out for us [fact]

2.) "The people" usually aren't very good at giving each other rights [as seen by history & the present]

3.) our interpreters of the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, read the protections and apply them to the people [fact]

4.) the Constitution protects the people [from each other]... My rights extend until they infringe on someone else's rights, for example.

1: We do indeed elect our representatives. Though whether or not they actually represent us is another argument.

2: The PEOPLE are the only ones who have ever given anyone rights.

3: The Supreme Court are NOT the interpreters of the Constitution. That concept was invented by the Court itself and was fought by the very people who WROTE the damn thing. The PEOPLE (Jurors) interpret the law.

4: PEOPLE protect people from each other. The Constitution is a piece of paper. How does it protect me? In fact if I were black in 1789 the Constitution would have said I am no more important than a piece of luggage.

1: okay, you agree with that fact.

2: Refer to Gay Rights, for example; all strides have been made by representatives or judges/attorneys.

3: Well, dude, the Court is the one doing the interpreting, and I trust ONLY them to judge fairly. Jurors are prone to bias. Besides, we're talking the High Court here. John Doe can't adequately apply the law.

4: Did *the people* give blacks & whites the right to marry in 1967? No, that was the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

The people cannot always be trusted to govern well. That's why we have *balances of power.*

And here in California, the people have gradually bankrupted the state by voting for initiatives we can't pay for. GG, people. Way to self-govern.

2: ALL STRIDES have been made by Representatives, courts and lawyers? Are you serious?! The representatives in any area that have made strides to institute gay rights initiatives have been a direct result of pressure from voters.

3: If you trust ONLY them to interpret, then you are unaware of how our JUSTICE system works. It is SUPPOSED to be Jurors judging the law. Supreme Court Justices are JUST as biased as any juror. Look at Scalia's dissent in the Troy Davis appeal!! FOR GOD SAKE he condoned executing a man because he had no remedy under the law. I am not sure how you can assume that only judges can adequately apply the law, they didn't write it or vote for it. One would assume the author of a law is the one to choose to interpret it.

4: The "people" DID give them the right to marry IN 1964!!! It was called the Civil Rights Act...but it took until 1967 for the JUDICIAL branch to accept the decision of the PEOPLE.

This is the majority opinion from the Dred Scott deciosion: the black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Way to go Courts!

Just in case you think that decision is too old to reflect a more progressive thinking court...here is a quote form one of those 9 that are the ONLY ones you trust to equitably apply the law. Antonin Scalia said in his written dissent:

the court "has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas (reviewing) court that he is 'actually' innocent."

i can't quite agree on your comparison to Europe of old. The difference is that if I am poor, which i was very poor, i can elevate myself out of that class into the next. Old europe did not have that option. So although we have classes in America they are not permanent, we can go up or down.

Though in present-day times, I think we're a lot closer to the Europe of old than the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps American ethos.

As admirable as that impulse is, I think a lot of people have lost sight of the historical context in which it developed. The idea of making your fortune out of nothing developed at a time when America had vast, untapped natural resources available. Think of pioneering days--all you had to do to get yourself a piece of land was to go homestead on it for a certain amount of time.

It's not like that anymore; problem is, we're still applying the same ideals and judgments. As much as there should still be a sense of the ability to raise yourself up based on your character and hard work, we also need to recognize that for a lot of people, they're working in a system that isn't inclined to even give them a chance to try.

youve gotta be kidding --THIS SOCIETY gives more to the poor than any other -- hence your basic premise fails.

Not really, check the policy of bread and circus in the late Roman empire...and the ONLY reason that the poor get anything here is because people who think realize the basis of this article, that without redistribution the economy fails. Monte since i am addressing you I will keep this simple...a few hundred people or even a few thousand with the wealth of a Bill gates simply cannot consume enough to keep the engine of this economy running, that takes millions, and those millions have to have disposable income in order to consume. Capice?
Or even more succinctly put, when the citizens get poor enough they will quit asking for help from the rich and will simply begin to execute them take what they need
Try reading about the French revolution or the Bolshevik revolution if you still don't get it.

Oh Eleganza, you can not confuse Montesooma with history and facts, he is to smart for that.

What should be perplexing is why anyone feels they are entitled to another person's wealth.

Because many of the uber-wealthy are criminals and are not entitled to it.

Why someone feels entitled to another person's wealth?

Why did Bernie Madoff feel that way?

Why did Enron feel that way?

Why did the mortgage brokers feel that way?

Last time I checked it was the wealthy stealing MY money and not the other way around.

The guy working 14hrs a day in the factory never took a ny from me....can't say the same for the BILLIONAIRE CEO'S who routinely invented new ways to rip me and everyone else off.

And higher taxes for the rich make sense. If I taxed someone making 100 billion a year 50 percent....they would STILL be multi-billionaires!!

If I taxes someone making $20,000 a year 50 percent they would suddenly fall below the poverty line.

why dont you start a revolution??

If anyone can show unlawful activities by the wealthy, let him come forward. Otherwise, to say all the wealthy are all criminals is simply a lie. Most of the wealthy are hardworking people, people who keep their noses to the grindstone for hours each day, not people who shun hard work and expect to suck off someone else's.

The wealthy pay more taxes than anyone already. What about the bottom THIRD of our country who pay little or NO taxes? They enjoy the same perks as the rest of us but do not contribute a thing.

Most of the wealthy are hardworking people
then why are they all ways sending
sending lobbyist to Washington to get
what they want and not all
poor are lazy and there are a lot wealthy
people don't have to get a job like
most people i don't get how say Republican
say rich people are elitist liberals
and people in small towns are hard working
who do not have much money and then
say people who don't have much money are lazy
and then they say rich people are hardworking
i don't know how poor people are hardworking and rich people are elitist and poor people are lazy
and rich people are hardworking it dose not make sense the GOP needs to make up ther mind
how can rich people elitist if they whould
want to get there money takeing away and given to poor people unless poor people are elitist
how are liberals rich elitist and poor lazy people
at the same times if your an elitist why
whould you want all your money to go to poor people.

When it was Bush's Whitehouse it was a Democracy. Now that the Republicans are the minority and doing anything they can to serve their corporate masters they cry that its a Republic.

What's worse is that I doubt many people know the distinction.

The constitution calls for taxing and spending Paratus... so by doing it... we are getting back to the constitution...

return to the Constitution Bush Wiretapped us
that ageist Constitution and so was the patriot
act why didn't you people have tea party
when Bush was President Bush spent
a lot money on people KBR and blackwater
and by the way 14 shoulders died because
KBR didn't do there job right.

SERIOUSLY... distribution of wealth is kind of vital as well though...

I have to agree. The financial umbilical cord between Washington and Wall Street MUST be severed to save our democracy.

so your saying tax the rich and give the best free education for anyone that cant pay for it . yeah I like your plan the best I would vote for that .