Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying

• Redistribution (sm) - of wealth
  • Those of you that are so fond of using that - lefty louie
    • Sorry, I did not mean to attach my response to your post . . . - lefty louie
  • Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying - onlyinamerica
    • Explain yourself, sounds racist to me. nm - geek
  • I hope you all enjoy working an extra 10 or 20 hours - Kaydie
    • oops - to the spelling police I meant family not famiy (nm) - Kaydie
  • Socialism rears its ugly head - Tulan
    • True, so true - sky
    • Unbelievable that there are no responses to this post.. All I can say is...sm - oldtimer
      • Exactly! - Stardust
  • This is nearly as outdated as - McC's economic policies...sm
  • Redistribution of Wealth - Marmann
    • I understand perfectly - gourdpainter
      • No, some of us have values and common sense. - O wouldnt even pass a security check!.nm
        • Security check? - Marmann
        • A dog chasing it's tail. - gourdpainter
        • Perhaps you'd like to give a common sense response to - the ugly head post above?...sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for.  My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes. 

Second issue.  It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon.  The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so.  Think about it.   Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a  mistake?  Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected.  The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected.  This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.

Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer.  Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.

Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?

The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct.  I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.

those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

FY 2007

Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:

1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 

Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.

2.     Payroll taxes                               35%

Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  

3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%

4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 

Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 

5.     "Other"                                          2%

So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    

If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   

A couple of other points of interest: 

http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html

"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:

Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 

1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s

2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   

3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 

4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 

5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s

6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s

7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    

From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:

1.     Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.  Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.

2.     Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.  Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Employee's share of this is 17.5%.

3.     Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues. 

4.     Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues.  Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.

5.     "Other"  2%

So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.

http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html

"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.  Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:  Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items.

1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s

2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s

3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 

4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 

5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s

6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s

7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s. 

From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.

---

Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.

---

Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm

---

Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.

---

Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."

---

Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

---

Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?

---

Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx

---

"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm

---

What exactly do you think spread the wealth
xx

---

I say YES to spreading the wealth

I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class.  I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks.  The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket.  They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy.  What they do is line their pockets and get rich  and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed.  I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.

---

spreading the wealth
no I dont and I dont want to.  But I do know about working my butt off and my husband his.  My husband has lost his job as a finish trim carpenter because of this ecomony.  I also know that since Bush has been in office, our lives have been that much harder.  Prices have gone up on EVERYTHING but our pay has not.  I also know that McCain did nothing but support Bush over the last eight years and only just recently has tried to separate himself from him.  Even McCain has said that he voted 90 percent of the time with Bush.  That is ALL I need to know.  By the way, not everyone who is having a hard time these days are people who refuse to work.  Not everyone that votes for Obama are people that are on welfare.  I have never been on welfare and would never be on welfare.  But unfortunately, the days of just simply working hard and getting ahead are gone.  It is NOT true.  I have been smart with my money, I work hard and I have been responsible with my credit but I cant see where I am getting anywhere. 

---

"Spread the wealth around"..also known as...
we are penalizing those who have worked hard, make a decent living, pay our bills and don't live above our means so that those who don't or won't do the same can ride our coat tails and not have to be responsible for themselves and feel some sort of entitlement. Some plan, placed squarely on the shoulders of hard working Americans who have done the right thing. Can you say SOCIALIST STATE?

---

Yes, need to spread that wealth around. LOL nm

---

So restribution of wealth

isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't?  I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.

They still have the right to be together as a couple.  No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc.  However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.

---

talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!

---

our government already redistributes the wealth...
I don't know why this is now an issue when it has not been being one - nobody cares about the redistribution of our wealth when tax time rolls around and all these people get thousands and thousands of dollars back from the IRS that they did not pay in, will never pay in, did not earn! Where do you think that money comes from - from us of course.

For example, I have a relative who makes $13.00 an hour but she never pays in a single penny of tax during the year and she gets a rebate of at least $5000 every year because of earned income. That effectively means, she makes $27040 tax free. That $5000 does not go toward income requirements for anything - she still qualifies for any government programs without including that extra $5000 as income.

Wake up people - our wealth has been being redistributed for years!

---

I'm going shopping before O can spread my wealth around! nm

//

---

No, wait! Not until he spreads enough wealth
nm

---

O has talked about "spreading the wealth."
That basically means those who have are going to be taxed so that the have nots get more than what they work for.

---

Once placed in context of unequal distribution of wealth,
So you decided the information here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. didn't matter? What about here? http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html?

You cannot talk about dollar amounts of tax burden for rich or poor without talking about distribution of wealth. Economics 101. There is a reason they pay higher percentages of total revenues. Some of them make 345 times more money than the average mean income in the US, for starters.

This is the kind of thinking that will drive JM/SP to certain defeat in November. Do you not understand how out of touch this issue is with the mainstream?

The explanation you gave for the $6 billion tax you claim O would impose on small businesses is now applied to an entirely different context. The trillion dollar boondoggle still remains the descent from $559 billion suplus inherited from BC to the $400 billion dollar deficit we have after Bush's economic policies and war. BTW, lest we forget, JM voted to support 90% of these plans.

Sam, do not expect the American public will have this same short attention span you demonstrate on these issues or that the spell the NeoCons and femocons seem to be under in never-never land has been cast over the rest of us "lower brackets" with the economy in free-fall and no end in sight.

---

obama's share the wealth plan

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:

Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?

---

Share the wealth -- Karl Marx...
as usual, take from those who have worked hard, achieved something and made something of themselves and give to those who are lazy and irresponsible and who think they are entitled just because life hasn't been fair to them. What an incentive for a great country.

---

Spreading the wealth in action...love it!
nm

---

Good for you! Then you won't mind sharing your wealth (NM)
x

---

This sharing the wealth...the pub mantra that escapes no one.
"collective ownership of resources" in Alaska (straight out of the moose's mouth)....that VERY different, too?

BTW, tax cuts, tax credits, progressive tax system is VERY American and not the least bit socialist. Letting tax cuts expire and tax rates return to their previous levels is hardly a radical policy. Rich folks have ALWAYS paid higher tax rates under the progressive tax order. Until that system is replaced, there is nothing unusual at all about the proposal to adjust the rate, or the candidate who is proposing to do it.

Run and hide if you like, but don't expect to pull the wool over anybody's eyes except the choir members whose votes are already in McC's pocket. This hypocrisy will not be escaping the undecided independents whose votes can make or break the pubs bid for the White House.

---

McCain is not talking about spreading the wealth either.
nm

---

They can't even combined touch Kerry's wealth. Get real.
on your own bad self.

---

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'....sm
FYI: Last night, couldn't find this story on the Internet, as the "powers that be" in the liberal media, attempted to scrub this story clean off the Internet, much the way they changed that SNL skit that was truthful on the whole liberal democratic responsbility on the FM/FM mess. They took out the facts of the blame to the dems, and reposted it on the Internet. They are trying to rewrite history, and that should make us very, very upset.

Anyway, found this story again this morning on Fox, and very hard to find the "whole story" elsewhere on the web, as some of it has "been scrubbed clean"


Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 13, 2008


Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.

Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/

---

McPalin new FL stump promise: Will SHARE THE WEALTH of
McSocialist: Drill baby drill, my friends, my friends, my friends, my friends. Alternative nuclear energy safety: Blah, blah,, blah, blah!. Yeah, baby!

---

"spreading the wealth" is the Robin-Hood effect.
nm

---

McSocialist promises to SHARE THE WEALTH from offshore drilling revenues

At least he and SP seem to be on the same page today.  SP:  "...and Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"....boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”

 

---

If we can't share the wealth, we can at least share a laugh...nm
x

---