On the contrarty. To clarify by using the extreme-limit case, in a system where it is literally true that “only the little people pay taxes” the rich would get free services at other people’s expense – a textbook example of wealth redistribution.
And if the opposite were true - that poor people did not pay taxes but did receive services - then that would be a textbook example of wealth redistribution downward. And that works even in the non-extreme limit cases - anyone who pays more in taxes than they receive in services is having some of his wealth transferred to those who pay less in tax than they receive in services. This is not necessarily always a bad thing - for a welfare state to continue to operate, almost by definition some are going to suffer a “net loss” - but ISTM that we do better by admitting it up front and not trying to obfuscate about what is redistribution and what is simply taking less away.
Because the poor don’t pay taxes the way the rich do, and if you lower the “tax rate” below zero, it is not a tax but a subsidy.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it would behoove us all to remember that Rand Rover’s definition of “fiscal conservatism” is pretty idiosyncratic. Not saying that it’s wrong, just saying that he claims to use the term to mean “people who believe there are hard limits on what Government can and cannot do” rather than the more common definition of “people who wish to lower overall Government spending and balance the budget” or the more idiot definition of “people who want to lie about being the immediate previous while handing out forklift-loads of money to their corporate patrons”.
Water flows downhill. If you turn down the water, there will be less at the bottom, but it’s not redistributing upwards.
Upwards, as Steve MB pointed out, would require a regressive tax system, where the rich end up with more money/services.
But you bring up a good point, the rich control the media, so it’s’ understandable that stupid people fail to understand.
It doesn’t matter what “percentage” Warren Buffet pays. The man is worth over $47billion. If he pays more in taxes than his secretary, that’s wealth redistribution downwards. Having him pay less wouldn’t be distrubution upwards as long as he’s still paying more.
Even just looking at his base salary of $519,490, at an effective rate of 17.7% he’s paying $91,949.73 in Federal taxes.
So if his secretary was also paying $91,949.73, at a rate of 35% she’d be earning $262,713.
In reality, his taxable income is about $46million, so at 17.7% he’s paying $2.478million in taxes. So either his secretary, who he said pays 30%, is paid $8.26million or your full of shit.
Do you think he’s getting $2.478million in services? If we lowered that to $2.3million would that mean he was getting more than his fair share?
The US has a progressive tax structure with a mountain of socialist programs. That means the rich are paying for the poor to have social programs, what is commonly known as redistribution of wealth. If you reduce taxes for the rich, and/or reduce social programs for the poor you still have redistribution of wealth, but perhaps less of it.
The US is a long fucking way from redistributing wealth UPWARDS. Again though, it’s not your fault, the rich people control the media.
All wealth redistribution upwards and no play makes Wesley Clark a dull boy. While I agree the GOP is trying to reverse the progressive redistribution system that is not all they are doing. In Wisconsin they are cutting progressive taxes and raising regressive taxes. That happened all over the US under the bush admin when regressive state taxes went up on the state level while federal progressive taxes went down. It happened under Reagan (Reagan cut progressive income taxes and raised regressive FICA taxes). That is wealth redistribution to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on everyone else. The wealthiest in the country only pay about 17% in federal taxes now.
Plus in Paul Ryans budget he cuts medicare and medicaid, but keeps subsidies to corporations like oil companies.
Plus arguably concepts like union busting allow more corporate income to go to profits rather than wages/benefits. So that is also a form of promoting redistribution.
All in all, it goes far beyond just reversing the current progressive tax/social safety net system. There are active efforts to redistribute wealth upwards by the GOP.
Yes, I do. He pays $2.478 million and what he gets for that money is the ability to live in a country which allows him the tools and resources to earn $46 million in annual wages.
[sub]Although 17.7% of 46 million is a touch larger than 2.478 so your numbers are off, but whatever[/sub]
But I have that too, and I don’t have to pay two and a half million in taxes. I think you are confusing what he is charged with what it costs to give him that opportunity. What it costs to give him that is more-or-less the same for everyone. What he is charged is different.
Charging on a sliding scale may or may not be fair, but it is not the same as claiming that it costs different amounts to provide the service.
Regards,
Shodan
Since we’re not in the pit, I need to tell you that you’re being a complete fucking idiot and partisan hack.
What I’m trying to explain to you isn’t a left/right issue, I’m trying to tell you that you’re making shit up using someone elses rhetoric and it’s making you sound like an idiot.
The rich have wealth, they are taxed, and services are provided to the poor. That is wealth redistribution, and is implied downwards.
In order to have it go upwards, you would have to take money from the poor, and then provide services to the rich at the exclusion of the poor. That would mean NO tax on people making more than $250k, and at the same time having a public school system that only allows children who’s parents make more than $250k.
Does the US have anything even remotely similar to that scenario?
No, they are not trying to reverse it. If anything they might be trying to make it slightly less progressive than it currently is. And right now it is VERY progressive. Not to say it’s the most progressive it has ever been, or that it shouldn’t be more progressive. The GOP have a fucking long way to go before they “reverse” the progressive redistribution system, resulting in UPWARD transfer of wealth.
That still isn’t redistribution upwards. That is slightly less redistribution downwards.
Still not upward redistribution.
still not upward redistribution.
And like I said, that 17% is still WAAAAAAAAY more than everyone else in actual dollars. The people in the top 400 are paying that 17% on millions in salary. Warren Buffett at $47million taxable income pays $8.12million (Thanks Steve MB). I don’t know you, but I think it’s pretty unlikely you’ll ever pay $8.12million in taxes. I don’t give a fuck what you think his secretary is paying, I guarantee it’s not $8.12million.
Still not upward redistribution, and now you’ve brought it a weird and unnecessary side issue. What do the oil companies have to do with anything? I noticed you didn’t mention corn subsidies. What do oil companies and their perceived subsidies have to do with redistribution of wealth upwards?
No, it’s not, and still not upwards.
No, those are efforts to reduce/lessen the downward redistribution. This isn’t about the GOP, this is about your desperate attempt to use bullshit rhetoric to make a point that isn’t there. Saying “redistribution upwards” means something entirely different than what is actually going on. To tie this into the OP, stop being a shill for what ever agenda someone else is trying to push.
We can argue back and forth about the efficiencies of said government, but the fact is that government exists and it takes money to run it.
It doesn’t cost different amounts to provide the service. It costs one set amount and that amount is however much it takes to run the government on an annual basis.
So you can cut taxes for the rich. You can cut taxes for the corporations. But the debt doesn’t magically disappear just because you stop taxing the top of the food chain.
So yes, Warren Buffet gets taxed more in absolute dollars than most everyone else in the US. But that’s the price he pays for living in a system that allows him to make the money to which he gets taxed. The system collapses without his contributions and I think he’d agree that’s a bad thing.
In short, he gets exactly what he pays for.
I don’t give a fuck what rate you tax Warren at, or how you justify it. Nor do I give a shit what services you provide to the poor.
Stop using bullshit rhetoric to pander to your base. If you (general you) need to use terms like, “wealth redistribution upwards” you clearly don’t know what the fuck is going on. And when called on it, having to bring up oil companies doesn’t help your case.
Well, um…
I’m glad you used the (general you) because I’ve never once said either here or in real life the phrase “wealth redistribution upwards” and I certainly made no mention of oil companies. So I’m not entirely certain what your point was in response to me.
Not everything is about you.
It is when you quote me.
Okay, let’s walk through this slowly so you can see how a message board works:
This is essentially a thread about bullshit rhetoric, specifically relating to liberals accusing conservatives of something; in this case “[conservatives] are paid by their corporate masters”
Wesley Clark then used the term “upward redistribution of wealth”
To me, this is just further bullshit rhetoric, so I called him on it.
Then you jumped in with a non-sequitur , replying to me, to tell us what you think.
So are you surprised now that your post got replied to in that chain? Were you not part of the discussion? Do you feel you added or detracted from the topic?
OK, this is how a message board works.
You see those nifty time stamps next to people’s posts? They tell you when people posted.
Look at the time stamp on your long post and then look at the time stamp on mine right below it. Do you see how they’re the same? Do you think it’s possible that I typed out that whole response to you within the same minute that you pressed “submit reply”?
I wasn’t replying to you, numnuts. I was replying to Shodan and you clicked a button ten seconds before I managed to.
Yeah, I don’t get grouping john mace in with those others either, but I suppose if you are far enough to the left, then the difference between center right and far right might seem like splitting hairs.
Perhaps I was unclear. I don’t think there should be a law that says “it is illegal to beat up Bob.” I think there should be a law saying “it is illegal to beat up anybody.” So, my policy favors Bob, but anyone who says I have a hardon for Bob based only on my advocacy of that policy is an idiot.
So much ignorance in this post. Don’t you claim to be a lawyer or law student? I thought I saw you post in a recent thread about law school. I think you can abandon that pretense now, bub, no one’s buying it.
I think my definition is in line with the general definition, which is “people who wish to lower overall Government spending.” Balancing the budget is a different issue.
How would you have me prove that I do not have a hardon for corporations?
There is a difference between fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative.
You are not a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives look a lot like libertarians who have read Atlas Shrugged one too many times.
Bricker, I think you aren’t grasping the purpose of this thread. The only purpose is to (i) fight the ignorance that fiscally conservative people hold the positions they do because of their desire to benefit “the corporations” and (ii) show how that incorrect belief is a natural result of the way many fiscal liberals look at the world. That’s it. I’m not advocating a policy position or arguing against a policy position advocated by anyone else. I’m fighting ignorance on one narrower point that comes up a lot around these parts.
Can we also agree that there is nothing inevitable (or even particularly efficient or optimal) about how wealth is distributed in the first place? For example, I can imagine a world where the income is distributed differently between capital and labor, or a world where the average CEO’s only make 50 times the median income instead of 350 time the median income (these multiples may be dated), or a world where doctors don’t give up medicine to go into banking.