More "Redistribution of Wealth" Stuff...

[guido911]

...from Obama in 2001. I am certain that most political junkies have heard this already, I am curious as to what Obama's campaign response has been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[we vs us]

Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait.  Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution?  Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?

Your thoughts, please.

[rwarn17588]

Here's a pretty good unpacking of this "controversy" (plus the fact Drudge's headline is wrong):

http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Here's a pretty good unpacking of this "controversy" (plus the fact Drudge's headline is wrong):

http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml

Your article does little to "unpack" the controversy. Indeed, I found this passage interesting:

"[T]here is no doubt from the interview that he supports "redistributive change," a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.

What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently?"

Also, I did not cite to Drudge.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait.  Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution?  Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?

Your thoughts, please.

First, I never knew I was "rich" until this election cycle. Most certainly, I have not taken anything from you or anyone else. My wife and I worked damned hard to get to where we are. As you probably know, we both served in the military after high school, then went to college and completed graduate school. Everything we have, we earned.

Now, the taxes we pay on what we have earned are extraordinary. My question to you: how much of what we have earned are you willing to take from me and my family and give to someone else?

[RecycleMichael]

Money is the route of all evil.

Send $9.95 to my e-mail account for more information.

[pmcalk]

As Colin Powell states, "all taxation is a redistribution of money."  Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military?  Did you get some help in college from your military tour?  Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?

The fact is the vast majority of our tax money goes to worthwhile pursuits like paying our military, and taking care of our elderly.  We educate our youth, pave our roads, secure our borders all through the "redistribution of wealth."  And we spend around 8% just paying interest on the huge deficit President Bush has created.  Somebody has to pay this.  A progessive tax approach allows us to pursue our interests, pay off our debt, and not destroy the middle class.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military?  Did you get some help in college from your military tour?  Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?

You mean did I get paid for serving my country, by my country, yes. Did I get a uniform, weapon, and food from the government, yes. Did I earn that money (which incidentally was not that good back then) by standing in harm's way, yes.

As for the rest of that post of yours, all I can say is "God save the middle class!" That's what is most important I guess, all others be damned.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

As Colin Powell states, "all taxation is a redistribution of money."  Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military?  Did you get some help in college from your military tour?  Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?

The fact is the vast majority of our tax money goes to worthwhile pursuits like paying our military, and taking care of our elderly.  We educate our youth, pave our roads, secure our borders all through the "redistribution of wealth."  And we spend around 8% just paying interest on the huge deficit President Bush has created.  Somebody has to pay this.  A progessive tax approach allows us to pursue our interests, pay off our debt, and not destroy the middle class.

Well put. When politicians voted to reduce the tax rate on the highest tax brackets during the last decade, that too was a redistribution of wealth but most didn't recognize it as such. In fact no one called it socialism. When the state of Oklahoma (and Alaska) sent tax rebates to their citizens because of oil largesse, that was a corporate redistribution of wealth. Anyone complain? (I did. I thought it was irresponsible when the state needed so much infrastructure attention. Its lonely out here.)

On a more local level, when my parents paid for my college tuition, I was the beneficiary of their income redistribution. What's the big deal about income redistribution?

And I've never met anyone who didn't relay how hard they worked to make it on their own when in fact we all got help in one way or another.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Ok, Guido, I'll take the bait.  Is it possible, in your world, for the rich to ever be too rich? What I would like you to answer is, is there such a thing as opposite wealth redistribution?  Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?

Your thoughts, please.

What do you think the maximum allowable income should be?  

Pretty much any movement of money could be called redistribution.  I hired some people to take away limbs from last year's storm.  I got a service I wanted.  They got a money redistribution.  Whenever you buy something, you redistribute money to the "rich store owner".  Presumably you did it willingly to get something you wanted.  

The objection comes when the government mandates redistributing assets to programs that don't provide desirable goods and or services.  Defining desirable is where most of us go our separate ways.

My guess is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's money will go a lot further to help medical research than any government program ever would. They wouldn't be able to do that if the government had kept them from becoming unfairly rich.


Edit:  I forgot to ask: What should be the maximum allowable wealth?  Above this level, the government takes everything.  It would keep any one from becoming too rich.

[Conan71]

All I can say is I'm weary of taxation and the talk of more of it is, well, taxing.

My total tax outlay as a % of my annual income this year will be in the neighborhood of 45%, taking into account payroll taxes, property tax, car tags, consumption taxes (sales and fuel), and imbedded taxes (corporate tax) on every good I buy and every meal I eat out.  Imbedded taxes are harder to calculate, but they are real and it's not corporations who pay corporate tax, but consumers.  My total outlay may actually be more due to this.  Keep in mind my company, as does yours pays, 1/2 of my social security tax.  I did not take that into account as more % of taxes paid on my behalf.

If everyone had to write a check to the OTC and IRS once a week, twice a month, or once a month, instead of it being deducted from their paycheck, and they had to pay 100% of their SS tax, they'd have a better appreciation for how much they were paying in taxes.  Many people never really consider they are paying taxes, as it's all taken out and they over-withhold so they get a refund at the end of the tax year.

Government needs to wean itself off our tax dollars and politicians need to quit justifying confiscation of wealth by shaming people into believing it's patriotic to support out-of-control spending and paying for worthless pet projects which are far from our home legislative districts.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Or, can the rich take too much from the rest of us?

Your thoughts, please.

ah, the good ole liberal finite wealth theory.  this "taking my share" of the wealth bull**** just seems to never go away.  have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, rich people CREATED their wealth, instead of "taking yours" from you?  do they really get wealthy on the backs of those less fortunate souls?  Give me a break.  there are certainly people in the world that steal people's trust funds, but by and large the far majority of rich people got their wealth from being smart and doing smart things with THEIR money, not by taking yours.  There is no finite amount of wealth that is traded around like currency, wealth can be created, and without disenfranchising those who chose not to go earn it themselves.

I get asked all the time, "how do you have such a big house and nice cars you are so young?"  It is because I am SMART with my money.  I'm not stupid like my sister and take out stupid ARM loans on a house and get upside down.  But I didn't get well off by taking her or anyone else's wealth.  I worked for it.  So why should I support ANYTHING that takes my hard earned money and gives it to people who don't want to work hard for it and did nothing to earn it?  Why do you think so many people are pissed off about the bank bailouts?  because they weren't stupid with their money, they didn't gamble it on loans for stupid bums who couldn't afford a house.  The people that are mad about bailouts and redistribution of wealth are the ones who did nothing but mind their own business and were SMART with their money.

When Obama takes office temporarily the old saying "work harder, millions on wellfare depend on you" will never ring more true.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Let me ask you Guido--who paid for you while you were in the military?  Did you get some help in college from your military tour?  Weren't we "redistributing wealth" when we took money from hard working Americans and gave it to you?

You mean did I get paid for serving my country, by my country, yes. Did I get a uniform, weapon, and food from the government, yes. Did I earn that money (which incidentally was not that good back then) by standing in harm's way, yes.

As for the rest of that post of yours, all I can say is "God save the middle class!" That's what is most important I guess, all others be damned.

Quit playing the victim.... you are LUCKY to live in a country where you are given ample opportunities to create wealth... opportunities greater than any other country in the world...

Certainly more opportunities than my stepfather had... drafted into Vietnam... I got to grow up watching him go from drugs to Jesus... got to watch him "hit the deck" after a stray firecracker on July 4th took him by surprise back in the day.

If given a choice between "spread the wealth" and "horde the wealth" guess which one I'm choosing?... when given a choice between "tax and spend" versus "spend and spend" guess which one I'm choosing?.... what do you think that $700 billion package is gonna be?... redistribution of wealth.... Robin Hood in reverse...

Yet you've indicated NO PROBLEM AT ALL with a regressive county sales tax rate hike to pay for improvements along the Arkansas River.  That smells like wealth redistribution to me...

Go figure.

I have zero sympathy for right-wing wealthy crybabies going into a corner and yelling "it's socialism" .... after the Bush administration sent a patriotic military into a post-9/11 pre-emptive war and spent a helluva lot more money on Halliburton than it did supporting our troops...

I know the economic doublespeak....

Redistribution of wealth to bailout the rich by dismantling estate and inheritance taxes is:  economic stimulus...

A reduction of middle-class taxes is... drumroll please, SOCIALISM!

Maybe someday you'll learn what I learned a long time ago.

Life ain't fair.  Ain't ever been fair.

But it's been more than fair to you.

I worked for frozen wages at or tied to minimum wage while my cost of living and cost of college rose in the 80s.... my taxes went up under Ronald Reagan... nearly dropped out of school after Gramm-Rudman budget cuts... I was told to "buck it up"...

So, cry me a river, Guido.  Instead of blaming Democrats, maybe you should set your sites a little higher in the blame game...

Soldiers die, CEOs prosper
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist
August 30, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/30/soldiers_die_ceos_prosper/

There is no evidence of a contractor having a soul in the 13th annual Executive Excess CEO survey by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, and the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy. The report found that 34 defense CEOs have been paid nearly $1 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded. Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.

``Did this surprise us? No, because we've been watching since Sept. 11," said Betsy Leondar-Wright, communications director for United for a Fair Economy. ``While the rest of us were worrying about terrorism and mourning the people who died, the CEOs were maneuvering their companies to take advantage of fear and changing oil supply, not just for competition but for personal enrichment."

The top profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.

While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation's waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report's analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

``Those examples take the cake, especially because it's all related to their government contracts, which is money straight out of the taxpayer's pocket," Leondar-Wright said.

The Executive Excess report, with the help of the Wall Street Journal's 2006 survey of executive compensation, made similar observations of oil executives as their firms enjoy record profits during war. The pay gap between the average oil and gas CEO and the average oil worker is 518 to 1. The general national CEO to worker gap is 411 to 1. The report said that the typical oil construction laborer would have to work 4,279 years to match the $95 million pay last year for Valero Energy CEO William Greehey.

This is so out of line that the authors of the Executive Excess report recommend wartime pay restraints for defense CEOs and a permanent congressional watchdog panel for contract fraud and waste. Companies that cannot adhere to restraints should be ineligible for contracts, they said.

The report said ``democracies decay when one segment of society flourishes at another's expense." Leondar-Wright said, ``It is now at the point where we have lost any sense of proportion. There is no sense of shared sacrifice, no sense that we're all in this together." Spreading democracy to Iraq is far-fetched when defense and oil CEOs speed its decay at home. They are all in it for themselves, at our expense.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/f/combatpay.htm
So, let's take a married E-5, with six years of service, stationed at San Diego, CA:

Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, tax-free

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
So, let's take a married E-5, with six years of service, stationed at San Diego, CA:

Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, tax-free

When did the military stop paying income tax?  I had to pay on my $550/mo (+living in the barracks and eating in the chow hall) as an E-5 over 4 yrs in the mid 70s.

[cannon_fodder]

I was leaning towards Obama for a slew of reasons, but this redistribution of wealth mantra has scared the hell out of me.  I don;'t know if it is rhetoric, or if he means more social programs, or if he really wants to see radical redistribution of wealth (which would be odd for a millionaire).  I understand full well that this rant is probably taking his rhetoric too seriously, but the concept is deserving of fear.

NO.  IT IS NEVER EVER EVER RIGHT TO TAKE MONEY FROM ANYONE, NO MATTER HOW RICH, AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.  NEVER.

It is a thing called property rights.  It is in the constitution.  I have a right to property.  It's mine. You also have a right to property.  But not mine.  I have the right to eat my sandwich, then throw it up to keep my girlish figure as I watch you starve to death.   I shouldn't do that, nor would I... but I have the right to.  Is that blunt enough for you?  Do we have the concept of property rights down now?

When the government takes my property for the express purpose of giving you property, that is a violation of my core rights.  Rights that should be defended.  Equitable taxation is a debatable issue, by naked redistribution of wealth in a radical fashion should be met with violence.  

Sure, he's just going to take from the really rich and give to the really poor.  Who gets to draw that line?  50% of the nation pays no appreciable income taxes.  Is the other 50% rich?  I know it is an extreme concept, but consider the road this leads down.

Go ahead and twist this to mean that I hate all government programs.  It simply isn't true.  Government assistance, section 8, title 19, food stamps, subsidized college, free daycare, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, loan programs, HUD, welfare and on and on and on.  Generally speaking, they are not granting property to anyone - this is not the level I'm talking about.  There are government programs that can benefit people - education, college loans, entrepreneurial grants, and social programs to help people get ahead (that's what welfare, section 8, and food stamps should be.  A way to get ahead, not a way to stay behind).  I have no problem with carefully structured government programs that benefit society in the long run - we try but are failing.  Naked redistribution of wealth is not a winning concept.

What possible good would come from a society that decides our inventors, our entrepreneurs, our writers, authors, actors, our most educated doctors and most successful businessmen should be punished?  Sorry, you did too good.  I understand you started a company that was innovative and now employ 8,000 people in good paying jobs but you've done too well... so we are going to take some of that away from you and give it to people who might be down on their luck, stupid, breed too much, or just didn't give a sh!t enough to stop partying and graduate from college, find a trade, or otherwise get a career that can pay the bills.

I don't care what sob stories you have for me.  Sitting next to me as I type this is my uncle's flag, a Vietnam vet who did the classic downward spiral.  Would taking money from the business owner and giving it to him have saved him?  No way.  Lets just take all their money and give it all away, if we took 60 Billion from Bill Gates and gave it to all the bums we would have no more homelessness!  Awesome!  Problem solved.

And yes, soldiers die.  That is what they do.  If you do not want to risk getting killed in combat, it is much safer not to sign up for the military.  I have the utmost respect for military personnel, but their job is to do as they are commanded.  They understand that, they sign up, and every year ~0.08% of them die.  Because Americans are willing to sign up for the military and risk getting killed, we should limit how much wealth other Americans can have?  That makes sense...

And while we are at it, NO, I was not in the military.  I chose not to, as is the right of every American in the last 30+ years.  I was given no magic spoon, I don't make $200K a year.  I'm sure had I better circumstances and made better decisions than some, and I know the reverse is also true.  So should I be forced to subsidize the guy who made worse choices?  Do I get check form the guy above me?

The entire basis of the concept is flawed.  It is NOT a zero sum game, wealth can be created.  

The reason the CEO of the company makes more than Joe Blow because it is a LABOR MARKET.  You are only worth what you have to sell.  Field hands in the oil patch are a dime a dozen.  Good ones that are willing to travel, show up, and aren't coked out can earn a DAMN good living (read: far, far more than an attorney in Tulsa). Crane operators, salesmen, many people can make a good living with or without degrees.    Who are you to tell them they make too much?  AND WHY DO YOU CARE if other people are rich?

It is not a zero sum game.  The CEO of Anycorp can make $50 zillion and it does not prevent the field hand from making a damn good living for his family.  If the CEO takes a massive pay cut  or receives NOTHING it doesn't mean the field hand gets any more.  My boss can drive a $150,000 car, live in a mansion, own a ton of property... whatever.  What should I care?  He isn't keeping me down.  And if he is I can and should go elsewhere.

And what's wrong with making $66,000 a year (E-5 working taxes back in)?  I know PLENTY of highly educated, skilled, and dedicated people that don't make that much money.  Odds are that E-5 will tell you gets paid to play with big-boy toys and camp out.  If he doesn't think that, he'd of left after his first sign up ran dry.

And I sure as hell am not a corporate welfare recipient or advocate.  The hell with them too.  Too big to fail?  Great, the government now owns you just long enough to sell off the pieces.  If we allow booms, we must accept busts.  Cushion the fall if you want but let it fall. Where's your bonus you ask?  Where's my kids college money you lowlife?  What's that Citgo, you want $50mil to stay in Tulsa... head South/South East until you get stuck in traffic and smell smog and sewer, you're in Houston.  Enjoy yourself.

I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth up, I'm not in favor of redistributing wealth down.    Trickle down economics as type cast is ridiculous, punishing the rich is equally fool hearty.  The ENTIRE CONCEPT of taking money from one group for the express purpose of giving it to another should be removed from civilization. I want to be able to make my pittance and know I earned it.  I want to see Paris Hilton lose everything and know it was her own damn fault.  I want to see the man next door hit it rich with the next great invention.  

Basically, I want to live in America.  The best and the brightest come here to live their dreams and bake their own big damn pies.  And that's fine with me, even if I don't get a whole one I'm happy to live in the USA and grab a piece of it every now and then.  

I'm SURE AS HELL NOT YELLING AT DEMOCRATS ABOUT THIS ONE. What about the Bush "Tax cuts" for people that DONT PAY TAXES?  Spending money we don't have, on crap we don't need.  Thanks George.

The hell with both parties.  It may void my entire ballot,  but I'm writing in "someone else" on my ticket then heading home to rest my weary head on my little piece of private property.  Then I'll get up and drag myself in to work to complain about whomever wins this election.  Vote the bums out.

/rant