So, you still believe redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional?

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
Then, you may have an issue with this news (unless you think that redistribution of wealth is ONLY unconstitutional if it goes from the wealthy to the rest of us, but is perfectly fine if it goes from the bottom 50% to the top 1%!)

Source: Associated Press

Washington — The government is reporting that 50 percent of U.S. workers earned less than $26,364 last year, reflecting a growing income gap between the nation's rich and poor.

According to the Social Security administration, there were fewer jobs, and overall pay was trending down — except for the wealthiest Americans. The number of people making $1 million or more soared by over 18 percent from 2009. There were 5.2 million fewer jobs in 2010 than in 2007, when the deepest recession since the 1930s began.

The payroll figures are based on W-2 forms submitted by employers to the IRS. The figures were posted by Social Security on its website as demonstrations raged on Wall Street and across the country protesting high unemployment and a growing income gap.

Read more: http://detnews.com/article/20111020/NATION/110200473/13...
 
Werbung:
If people are making that, then they are paying no taxes so there is no tax money to redistribute.

Conversely, those of humble means are almost certainly getting Earned income Tax Credits, possibly fod stamps and other welfare which is paid for with tax money from those of us who DO pay taxes or, of course, China.
 
If people are making that, then they are paying no taxes so there is no tax money to redistribute.

Conversely, those of humble means are almost certainly getting Earned income Tax Credits, possibly fod stamps and other welfare which is paid for with tax money from those of us who DO pay taxes or, of course, China.


You're obviously missing the point!

There may not be tax money to redistribute from the poor to the wealthy, but the fact that the income of the lower 50% has fallen, while the income of the top 1% (and the number of new millionaires) has risen means that the wealthy have squeezed more wealth out of the bottom 50% through lay offs, and LACK of jobs creation by private "job creators," who prefer to keep their wealth rather than help the bottom 50%.

NO matter how you want to look at it, the policies of deregulation of industry and banks, and the Bush tax cuts have created a windfall for the wealthiest in the US, and have squeezed all life out of main street and the poor.

And now, when there is pratically nothing more to squeeze out of the poorest in the US, the GOP and tea party want to take away the means of bare survival: food stamps, medicare, medicais, and any assistance that the poor received!

To benefit WHO? or WHAT?

Do you want a specific exemple of this? Look at Koch Brother's wealth. . .which as grown at about the same rate as employment has fell!

Obviously, if you don't need to pay workers. . .you get more money in your pocket. . .And the laid off workers fall deeper into poverty!

Fairness? Constitutional "will?" Nope. . .stupidity from about 45% of the nation, and greed and hypocrisy from the top 1%.
 
You're obviously missing the point!

I think you are missing the point. You made a factually impossible assertion and all I did is point this out. I understand you wished to take your data and make a statement about it. I have no problem with that, just don't try to spin it into something it cannot be. It diminishes the point you hoped to make.
 
I think you are missing the point. You made a factually impossible assertion and all I did is point this out. I understand you wished to take your data and make a statement about it. I have no problem with that, just don't try to spin it into something it cannot be. It diminishes the point you hoped to make.

Factual impossible assertion?
Please explain and demonstrate that.

Or better yet... prove that that assertion is impossible.
 
Then, you may have an issue with this news (unless you think that redistribution of wealth is ONLY unconstitutional if it goes from the wealthy to the rest of us, but is perfectly fine if it goes from the bottom 50% to the top 1%!)

Yes I still believe that when the gov redistributes wealth it is unconstitutional. How is what you posted in any way a comment on the constitutionality of redistribution?

How have you even supported the idea that the gov is redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich? The fact that the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer does not mean that the gov moved the money - the gov might have but you have not shown it.
 
If people are making that, then they are paying no taxes so there is no tax money to redistribute.

Conversely, those of humble means are almost certainly getting Earned income Tax Credits, possibly fod stamps and other welfare which is paid for with tax money from those of us who DO pay taxes or, of course, China.

Yes you have shown the impossibility of it through gov taxes.

People who pay no taxes cannot have their tax dollars given to the rich - that would be impossible.

I suspect that Open mixes up money that poor people trade for pop music with tax dollars that the gov moves from rich people to poor people. Somehow the free trade is wrong but the taxed redistribution is right.
 
Werbung:
You're obviously missing the point!

There may not be tax money to redistribute from the poor to the wealthy, but the fact that the income of the lower 50% has fallen, while the income of the top 1% (and the number of new millionaires) has risen means that the wealthy have squeezed more wealth out of the bottom 50% through lay offs, and LACK of jobs creation by private "job creators," who prefer to keep their wealth rather than help the bottom 50%.

It does not definitely mean that at all. It could mean that but it might just as well mean something else.

When the economy crashed the amount of wealth that was owned by all of us in total fell. There was less money than there was before. Money was destroyed.

In a reverse way, something that is common, when the rich get richer it often means that they have created wealth. They did not need to take it from anyone for them to get richer.

Now if they did get rich by taking money from the rest of us we still have to determine how that happened.

If they stole it or defrauded someone, then the correct solution is to arrest them not to tax them.

If they traded with us for it then that is fair and the gov needs to do nothing.

If they just got lucky then that is still fair and the gov needs to do nothing.

If they were smarter or more talented or just blessed then that too is fair and the gov needs to do nothing.

In all the scenarios the one thing that never needs to happen is for wealth to be redistributed through taxes.
 
Back
Top