ya know, the problem with “wealth should be more evenly distributed” is it seems as if we are trying to take something from people who have earned more then we have

instead we need to start pointing out, the wealthy pay less toward infrastructure and toward society then everyone else

we don’t really want “their money” we want our money which they have taken

when they have 95 percent of the economic assets they obviously need to pay 95 percent of the expenses that created those assets

instead they pay a fraction of of the expenses their portion of the assets have cost

THAT’S the way we need to address these issues, we have to stop making it look like we need or want hand out’s, we don’t

what we need is for them to pay the same percentage we pay toward the expenses that helped them get the wealth in the first place

But I’ll bet a majority of the wealthy don’t.

politicians only really listen to the guys with the donations checks and golden parachute post career money.

Calling taxation “wealth redistribution” is inflammatory, if you ask me. If someone has numerous cars/houses/planes/sub-zero refrigerators/whatever, they are consuming an inordinate amount of resources that taxes the planet and the inhabitation of it by people who consume less in their lives than one car “costs” the environment/resources/labor.

Taxing them based on their wealth is not “redistributing” wealth, and the costs of the rich that are dumped on the rest of us is not something we can “recover.”

Let me think a minute…how did this financial mess all start again? Wasn’t it bankers and hedgefund managers that desired to package up mortgage loans, encouraged very shady lending practices, targeted the elderly, the lesser educated, the scammers, the poor and uninitiated as well as subvert a decades old system that robbed states of income in title registrations depriving them of billions of dollars they kinda need right now, causing ultimately millions of foreclosures (many done illegally), and ….well since Reagan the middle class has taken it deep where the sun don’t shine with Milton Friedman and the trickle downers killin’ us all…….talk about “redistribution of wealth” ….give me a break…yeah, we’ve been “redistributed” all right…the wealthy need to fork over huge wades of cash back to the states and the federal government to undo the mess they created for the last thirty some odd years and then some… this is not about socialism….that’s Fox Noise crap…they don’t want to pay ANY TAX at all!…they need to share the pain that we have endured for DECADES!

Well… The system isn’t working.

Capital isn’t ‘distributed’ in a way which makes it possible to work.

Redistribute it by whatever means necessary. Could care less what millionaire anchor men/ women on Faux have so say about it. They defend cretins like Scott in Fla who robs from the poor and hands it to the rich in front of their faces. It’s clear that they do not care about inequality.

How come the Republican party doesn’t call it wealth redistribution and Socialism when they want the middle class and the poor to have cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood…etc, etc…they call it “having an adult discussion”…they want to keep their tax cuts and US to pay more…how is that not a Socialism for the wealthy to support their cause?

I think even the questions asked here are too myopic. The one that’s been bouncing around my head this week is, “Should it be legal to crash the economy?” …or words to that effect.

a rigged political system that disproportionately distributes political power to the wealthy and status quo

who control the media which should report on stories like this.

Your opinion’s strong, your argument’s better.

Frankly, those numbers are really depressing me.
In essence, half the country is so f__ked in the head, they don’t think it’s fair to tax the crap out of millionaires.

IMHO, when one third of this country is really hurtin’ and nearly 75% are financially insecure about their futures, yet half the nation thinks the rich shouldn’t have to pitch in much more, then this country is so damaged it’s beyond hope.

If anyone is interested in a good video treatment of the issues of wealth distribution and American politics, this is is worth your time:

Lifting the Veil: Barack Obama and the failure of capitalist ‘democracy’

The film is a sort of mashup of different commentators and quotations, with a variety of good music and a strong economic as well as political critique. You might have seen some parts of the different interviews but probably not everything and certainly not put together in this way.

The film also works to reclaim the hope that was such a strong part of the marketing propaganda of the last presidential campaign, by giving it a real meaning again. On the whole, it’s very well done.

Well… The system isn’t working.

I’d say the system is working exactly as it’s intended, and working rather well.

The problem for us is it was designed by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

If there’s anything broken here, it’s our ability to continue to delude ourselves about the nature of our country and ourselves.

And that is a very good thing indeed.

In a political system that wasn’t so totally dependent on donations from the ultra-wealthy to finance campaigns, you would actually expect this “tax the rich to redistribute the wealth idea” to be part of the platform of one of the two major parties.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

So how do we change this in this post-Citizens-United world? Well, http://www.publicampaign.org is a start.

Regardless, we basically have half the country supporting the idea of NOT heavily taxing the rich to pay for direct government wealth redistribution. That is huge, mainstream support for an idea most politicians and the traditional media would label as ultra-right-wing conservative Teabag philosophy.

In a political system that wasn’t so totally dependent on donations from the left and unions to finance campaigns, you would actually expect this theme to be part of the platform of one of the two major parties.

Oh wait, it is.

No surprise here.

Had a good discussion of NOT taxing the wealthy on this thread yesterday.

And the best thing about it was that everyone ignored the ignorant troll talking points at the first comment.

I think polls like this mostly test the success of disinformation.

How often have people been told that the kind of concentration of capital is necessary for a “healthy” economy? Where is the serious discussion of alternatives?

For the past 30 years, the experts on the TV machine have mostly been talking about Laffer curves and freedom = “free” markets, etc. Is it surprising that people believe it?

Oh but the wealthy ARE taxed, and taxed mightily. Their “rate” of taxation may be lower than the middle class (where does tha middle start, exactly?) but they fund the majority of this government. You could take every single dollar that the “wealthy” individuals earn and you’d not erase the deficit. But that’s not a convenient statistic, is it?

Then again, you have comments like the first in this thread that claim that the wealthy’s assets were somehow “created” by this government. So as long as you agree with that theme, that the wealthy somehow owe it all to Uncle Sam, we’ll get nowhere, will we?

New post up top.

You must be kidding me. The mainstream media spends almost all of its demonizing the rich and decrying how poor pitiful johhny mainstreet just can’t seem to make ends meet while richy rich lounges on his yacht.

Thanks, I’ll be there.

Oh but the wealthy ARE taxed, and taxed mightily.

and then,

Their “rate” of taxation may be lower than the middle class…

This whole discussion is just a joke, right? Because you’re kidding yourself thinking you can peddle this stuff, right?

Right?

You somehow find fault with these facts?

I think the disconnect between those two phrases is so blindingly obvious that your argument is not to be taken seriously.

Well, they are perfectly in line. Just like the flip side, that being:

The poor pay a higher effective tax rate

AND

The poor pay too much taxes because the rich pay too little.

Now, I must leave for the night. I have to finish my taxes for 2010. I’m squarely middle class and yet find that somehow Obama calls me rich enough so that I find myself paying almost 40% of every dollar I earn to one confiscatory government or another.

Do they really? Then why do they vote Republican?

That’s the same line that you used yesterday in the Tax Day post, and it hasn’t improved with age.

For one thing, you don’t seem to have a clue that it isn’t the dollar amount, but the proportion of spendable income that has to go to taxes – someone who’s a millionaire or billionaire has a lot more money to play with than someone making $30,000 a year, so they can, and should, pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes, because they can effing well afford to do so.

You’re clearly squarely in the centrist section of the Democratic party, assuming you are claiming to be one, which means you’re an effing moderate Republican.

I bet you don’t have to file Schedule D, either.

You’re way too kind.

“I personally think the question exhibits an unfair bias when it uses the phrase “heavily taxing.””

The lack of context in this and so many such polls completely invalidates the responses. In this case, John Galt could not have framed it better. The American populace is so clueless as to the real nature of their economy and political systems that any responsible debate is moot.

Until widely viewed media articulate, in simple terms, the reality of wealth distribution in 2011 and how it got to be that way, it’s all just kabuki. Of course the corporate behemoths that own the newsrooms of America care deeply about their sacred trust to inform the electorate. Lindsay Lohan steals a bracelet, and you’ll never guess where she hid it! Film at 11:00.

Cheers.

Jon, Jon, Jon –

Gallup’s methodology was all wrong. They sampled a representative cross-section, not just the rich people, but they’re the only ones whose ideas and preferences matter.

This argument has to be framed in terms of class warfare and “fair taxation”. Redistribution of wealth just sounds too communistic.

The system wasn’t designed for Ronnie Reagan’s trickle down nonsense, or, really, a Central Bank. The system has been redesigned with too few regulations, absurdly low taxation, Corporations as ‘people’ who can make unlimited donations to political campaigns, and no longer works.

Progressive arguments suffer from the use of the words “wealth distribution.”

Too bad Democrats don’t have a Frank Luntz to test better phraseology.

I would suggest using phrases like “tax fairness” or “fairness in taxation” to move the argument/rhetoric to a more accurate level.

Who benefits more from the Federal Aviation Administration: wealthy people (who fly more frequently, sometimes on their private planes) or poor people (who don’t fly at all?)

Perhaps people who can afford to fly should be expected to pay for the complete cost of air transportation safety. That seems “fair” to me.
Why should people who never fly pay one penny for FAA or TSA?

Who benefits the most from the interstate highway system, corporations that use the highways to transport their goods, or people who can’t afford to own a car, or if they do have one, can’t afford the price of gasoline?

We need to terminate this “wealth distribution” argument and change it to an argument based on fairness. Who benefits more from effective police and fire departments? People who have everything, or people who have nothing?

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp (even for the Tea Potters.)

Fifty-seven percent of Americans think wealth and money should be more evenly distributed and don’t think the current situation, with a hyper-concentration of money in the hands of a few, is fair, according to the latest Gallup poll.

Then the majority of Americans should stop electing wealthy narcissistic assholes to elected office.

Considering that there’s no accountability for politicians, and the fact that regardless of what Americans might think about an issue they’ll keep on electing shameless self-promoting shitsticks, I’m having a really difficult time comprehending the point of opinion polling. Other than to point out the rank hypocrisy of both the politicians and the voting public?

Many of the comments above reflect the correct view that it is not “redistribution” of wealth which people demand but the equal distribution of the burden of government. Maybe we can all agree that government is a necessary evil we must all endure for a better life and living. (Maybe not but just suppose). If so, the sharing the burden idea becomes an exercise in the “hedonistic calculus” whereby the pain, to be shared equally, must necessarily be larger in terms of strict quantity for those able to bear it.

-

I think we need to make a better effort of communicating the concept of effective tax burden. Joe makes $2000 per month pre-tax and has basic, non-negotiable living expenses (rent, food, car, etc) of $1500. Remaining income Joe would have left to spend, save and invest were it not for taxes: $500. If all taxes combined amount to 20% of Joe’s pre-tax income, then Joe will lose $400 of that and have only $100 left. Joe’s effective tax burden relative to his disposable income: 80%. How’s that for “confiscation”.

Janet makes $20,000 per month pre-tax and has higher living expenses than Joe. $5000 per month covers what she considers basic standard of living. Remaining income she has if it were not for taxes: $15,000. If she’s also taxed at a total rate of 20%, she’ll lose $4000, and still has $11,000 left to spend. Janet’s effective tax burden relative to her disposable income: 26.6%.

What if Janet is taxed at a total rate of 50%? She’ll lose $10,000 of her after-living expenses $15,000 then, but still have $5,000 left. Her effective tax burden is then 2/3 or 66.7%, but still far short of Joe’s 80%.

Bottom line is, 20% tax rate for a poor person may well represent a greater level of pain than 50% for a moderately rich person, never mind the situation of the truly rich. If we can communicate this idea that “heavy” ain’t “heavy” for the rich, then we’ll win this debate.

40%??? really? Most of the 100k + small biz owners I have known tell me “if you pay any taxes at all, fire your accountant”.

Around the time of the shrub coup a Navel Architect I knew made a cool $250k one year. He told me that his accountant had to forgo a deduction to keep him from getting $5000 back, which would have triggered an audit.

You definitely need a better accountant.

—————————
and everyone else here:

This is REALLY annoying because “that is my name too”; literally (minus an s)! (Six of us in the local phone book last I checked).

Please don’t confuse ME with a troll teabagger.

Agree high taxes on the wealthy should be understood as making them pay their fair share for infrastructure. People should also take it as a given that wealth is distributed unfairly in the form of low wages and predatory pricing and, under those conditions, taxation gives it back to the people who helped create it. Another given – accumulated wealth is bad in and of itself because it allows incompetents (see Gates, education) to exercise undo influence – that’s the kind of narrative the wealthy want to keep out of our schools and universities.

*** Citizen Alert ***** Citizen Alert ***** Citizen Alert ******

‘Reports are surfacing that Scott Walker is now preparing his next assault on the democratic political process in the State of Wisconsin.

Following the lead of Michigan GOP Governor Rick Snyder, Walker is said to be preparing a plan that would allow him to force local governments to submit to a financial stress test with an eye towards permitting the governor to take over municipalities that fail to meet with Walker’s approval.

According to the reports, should a locality’s financial position come up short, the Walker legislation would empower the governor to insert a financial manager of his choosing into local government with the ability to cancel union contracts, push aside duly elected local government officials and school board members and take control of Wisconsin cities and towns whenever he sees fit to do so.

Such a law would additionally give Walker unchallenged power to end municipal services of which he disapproves, including safety net assistance to those in need…………….’

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/04/16/gov-scott-walker-reportedly-planning-financial-martial-law-in-wisconsin/

I went to prison for redistributing wealth…the government called it “Armed Robbery.” When BIG Governments (e.g. Fascist/Communist types) do it they call it something else, and they get away with it!? Maybe having bigger weapons and the threat/promise of prison (or death) allows them to do it…

The thing is – and this is yet another area in which the left has been woefully inadequate in framing the discussion – reversing the upward redistribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 30+ years is not at all socialistic. It is, in fact, quite in keeping with the market capitalism that the right wing claims to have so much devotion for. Market capitalism relies upon a large robust middle class as it’s engine. The concentration of wealth under supply side economics continues to starve that engine and destroy market capitalism in the US. Make no mistake, supply-siders are NOT capitalists. They are, in fact, neo-feudalists, who want to see a world in which a wealthy few own everything, and the rest must pay fealty for their table scraps, and borrow everything they possess from their “landlords” (at a healthy rate of interest I’m sure).

So much for “…forever crushing the aristocrats?” America’s founders envisioned an egalitarian society. Where the rule of law protects rights which ensure liberty and opportunity in a society. Instead we get a repeat of a slave-owners mentality. Where instead of protecting life and liberty we get fugitive slave laws. Instead of people and their property being protected, by law, people are deprived of property by “corporate aristocrats,” utilizing law.

The system has been gamed, from energy, to finance, to healthcare. Imagine a tax on life, for merely existing. A mandated insurance premium to be paid to a stated based corporation under fear of tax penalty? Real charitable BCBS? Why not reconstitute the institution slavery and fugitive slave laws, for the benefit of the corporate interests who like the slave owners had their interests protected by a Supreme Judicial Courts who could not understand the concept of “equality under the law” as applied to Negroes, adulterated and adjudicated. Construed as inferior, denied protection of law and considered property for the benefit of slave owning aristocrats?

Wake up and smell the coffee America. End your sodomy at the hands of corporate aristocrats who have bought government, as Jefferson feared! The undue influence of the monied interests to usurp the due process voting rights of the governed vs the corporate shell who now has Citizens United to pitch the pitch in the favor of the corporatist just as the aristocratic slave-owners utilized Scott vs Sanford to perpetuate slavery, an ultimately challenge the rule of law, as Jefferson feared, via a civil war. Deja Vu, as the modern day corporatist fucks you, using the color of law. Let’s protect the modern slave owners America?

Slavery lasted less than 80 years – basically in-between two wars fought for freedom – here in the USA. Perhaps you are thinking of Africa and/or the Middle East?