More "Redistribution of Wealth" Stuff...

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'll get up and drag myself in to work to complain about whomever wins this election.  

Focus on the positive. It won't be a Bush.

For eight years I have been thinking, "Anybody else for President".

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Focus on the positive. It won't be a Bush.

For eight years I have been thinking, "Anybody else for President".

I thought that about Clinton and look what we got.

[cannon_fodder]

lol, I thought that about both of them.

[mrburns918]

I am trying to understand why Republicans are saying the middle class will be taxed and screwed. I am middle class and make not even close to $250,000.00. Nor do some of my what I consider well off friends. I checked the average income of the so called middle class at The Tax Foundation (credible?) and here is what they said...

Table 1. Middle Income Range Varies by Type of Household
Calendar Year 2006
Type of
Household   Median Income
(2006)   Middle 20 Percent Range   Middle 60 Percent Range (Not in bottom 20% or top 20%)
All Households   $48,201   $37,771 - $60,000   $20,036 - $97,032
  Married Households   $69,716   $57,200 - $82,935   $35,476 - $121,842
  Unmarried Households   $29,083   $24,500 - $39,010   $13,062 - $63,500
      Households with Unmarried Female Family Head    $31,818   $25,200 - $39,336   $13,476 - $63,000
     Households with Unmarried Male Family Head    $47,078   $38,776 - $55,500   $24,300 - $84,000
  Non-Family Households (Single)   $29,000   $22,200 - $36,020   $12,108 - $60,300

Note: Income measure is cash money income from Census, which includes most market income (except capital gains) and some transfer income such as Social Security payments. However, it excludes the value of employer-provided health insurance, net imputed rental income, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments, the value of food stamps and other in-kind government services, capital gains realizations, and more. For a detailed description of the income concept Census employs, see http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html.
Also, technically the fraction of the population falling into those characteristics is based upon March 2007 responses—not exactly the year 2006—even though the income data is all based on 2006 income. (In other words, some households could have a change in their status in that short time period.)

Source: 2006 Current Population Survey, Census Bureau

So what gives? According to The Washington Post people with income between 226,000.00 to 603,000.00 are not really affected by Obama's plan. Again, I don't see how this would affect the middle class.

John McCain says the middle class are going to be taxed by Obama. This is not true, unless McCain's version of the middle class is someone who makes over $603,000.00 a year. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised by that either.

If my choice for president was soley based on his tax stance and my household made under $125,000.00 a year, I would be a fool not to vote for Obama.

Now, if you want to use the trickle down argument....


Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by mrburns918
Now, if you want to use the trickle down argument....

Trickle Down economics turned into Tinkle On economics. The rich just pissed on the poor.

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by 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

I think your point is well made but when we have a bunch of people saying this is supposedly a Christian nation, the logic you typed above just doesn't jive with the first four books of the new testament.

Also, it amazes me how we focus on the sob stories and individual aspect while never taking large corporations to task. Talk about welfare mothers.

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by mrburns918


Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.

Hi.  I am a dues paying Libertarian.  You are not voting for Bob Barr if you live in Oklahoma.  Mostly because no 3rd party is allowed to run in Oklahoma.

Louisiana has banned the party also, because it missed a filing deadline on account of a mandatory Hurricane evacuation order that closed state offices.  In spite of the deadline being extended and the filing meeting the extended deadline the Republican AG is fighting it.

Same story in many other states.  Lawsuits by attorney generals or other parties to keep an entire group off the ballot.  Many states the LP is only on the ballot because they sued and won.  Need 10K signatures, they turn in 15K and then STILL have to sue to get on the ballot.  Deadlines get moved.  Laws enforced against the LP that haven't been enforced in 70 years.  Different rules for the LP than everyone else.  Cases currently before several courts including Oklahoma and the US Supreme Court just trying to get a name on the ballot.

Did you know BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats missed the filing deadline to have their candidate n the ballot in Texas?  The LP challenge was dismissed.  The facts there are not in dispute, but those parties do not have to follow the rules.



The two party system sucks.

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by mrburns918


Mr. Burns
This fool is voting for Bob Barr.

Hi.  I am a dues paying Libertarian.  You are not voting for Bob Barr if you live in Oklahoma.  Mostly because no 3rd party is allowed to run in Oklahoma.

Louisiana has banned the party also, because it missed a filing deadline on account of a mandatory Hurricane evacuation order that closed state offices.  In spite of the deadline being extended and the filing meeting the extended deadline the Republican AG is fighting it.

Same story in many other states.  Lawsuits by attorney generals or other parties to keep an entire group off the ballot.  Many states the LP is only on the ballot because they sued and won.  Need 10K signatures, they turn in 15K and then STILL have to sue to get on the ballot.  Deadlines get moved.  Laws enforced against the LP that haven't been enforced in 70 years.  Different rules for the LP than everyone else.  Cases currently before several courts including Oklahoma and the US Supreme Court just trying to get a name on the ballot.

Did you know BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats missed the filing deadline to have their candidate n the ballot in Texas?  The LP challenge was dismissed.  The facts there are not in dispute, but those parties do not have to follow the rules.



The two party system sucks.

Amen to your comment about the two party system.

Ya, my support for Bob Barr is only in spirit. I did not know about the Texas fiasco, that is pretty interesting.

Still not sure about who my vote will go to, this election has been a nightmare.

Remember when Bo Gritz ran for President?

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

[cannon_fodder]

and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning.  I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible.  Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.

BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions.  The Lord helps those who help themselves.  People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor.  People are to give alms.  It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.

Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame.  If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).

SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning.  I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible.  Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.

BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions.  The Lord helps those who help themselves.  People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor.  People are to give alms.  It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.

Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame.  If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).

SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.

Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.

His tax plan is only 10%.  If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

and you have never heard, nor ever will hear me support a proposition using God as my reasoning.  I do not subscribe to the Christian nation argument as clearly many (if not most) of the founders were as set against that as possible.  Not too mention their notion of "Christian" was different than ours and affiliations with many popular churches today would be heresy to the most staunchly religious founders.

BUT, I could still argue that in fact the bible supports my contentions.  The Lord helps those who help themselves.  People are given a mandate to show their love for God by loving their neighbor.  People are to give alms.  It is not a mandate to require your fellow man to do so, the mandate is to do so yourself as a sign of devotion to God.

Forced faith or forced action of any kind is not righteous, it is a shame.  If an omnipotent being wrote a book 6,000 years ago and has tracked humankind since creation, I think such a being will be able to tell earnest intentions from those mandated by the tax man or those done not out of the spirit of support for ones fellow man, but by vanity (look how much I give!).

SO, I don't buy the Christian nation line, and even if I did... mandated socialism doesn't apply.

After reading your previous post on another subject about you being a Libertarian, I suspected your follow up post would be of this nature. That is not a bad thing!

My point was this, you cannot pick and choose issues as to what defines us as a Christian nation. There are statements in the bible that also support the ideal of socialism, non violence, anti-rich, give unto cesar too.

I am a firm believer that religion should have no place in government. Example... Check the census data and where America will be in thirty years. Mexican Americans/Latinas will be the majority. Majority are Catholic. If we were to allow the ten comandments into our government buildings today, then don't start pitching a fit thirty years from now when a majority wants a photo of the pope next to the ten commandments.

Not that there is anything wrong with the pope, catholicism, etc. etc. I am simply making a point by example. Same holds true to Mormon, Lutheran, Islam, Buddhism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.

His tax plan is only 10%.  If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.

I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?

My God accepts cash. I misspelled his name once by adding an "L". It turned into Gold.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I thought the same thing. I recall paying income tax as well in the 1980s.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
Actually, I'm going to do a write in for God in every race on my ballot.

His tax plan is only 10%.  If I don't have it in cash I can give it in sheep, goats, wheat, or chickens.

I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?

That is when a sharp knife and accurate scale is useful.  Let your conscience be your guide on whether it come from the head or the tail.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I have a real problem with giving ten percent of my sheep to God. I only have one sheep. Which part do I give?

I think God will let you keep the whole sheep, seeing as how your career in shepherding is likely near the end.