Is it time to take from the rich to give to the poor?

[Greatest I am]

Is it time to take from the rich to give to the poor?

The hockey stick graph introduced to the climate issue startled enough to start the trend to deal with it.

That shape showed the gross indecency and immorality of our collective focus.

That same immoral shape is what most countries now suffer in their socio-economic demographic pyramids, with a relatively small poor sector when compared to the whole; and especially when compared to the rich.

Statistically and in the long run, the rich have done a good job of improving our collective good.

Going from good to excellent would, cost the rich so little.

I have to wonder why their demographers are not recommending that the rich take just a wee bit off the shank of the stick and fix the tip.

It is loose change (a bit of butt tape to our hockey stick), and if the rich will not fix the economy on their own, perhaps we should take their loose change, fix things, --- and raise their grade to excellent.

I understand that there are already several billionaires eager to start such a fund.

Get together, rich benevolent bunch, and set things right.

That will show the world why the rich rule the world.

My rich friends. Boost the trickle down with a one time trickle up and end poverty.

Please hurry, before I must answer yes to my own question.

9 out of 10 Americans are completely wrong about this mind-blowing fact. - Upworthy

[dutch777]

1. Overdue.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. The current wealth & income inequality is unsustainable

[former9thward]

11. Your graphs are defeating your point.

Especially given the X axis is a logarithmic function which completely distorts the number of people making the daily income. In the 1800 graph the vast majority of people are below the international poverty line. In the 2015 the vast majority of people are above the poverty line. So as time goes on income inequality is lessened which is shown by your graphs.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. If you think $2 per day is suitable in the US, dream on. But yeah, second graph doesn't quite make the point

The second set of graphs doesn't quite make my point the way the first graph does. Not defeating it but not helping it.

I guess I was in a bit of a hurry. Sorry.

[brooklynite]

3. Define "rich" and "poor"

On an international scale you're doing pretty well. How much of your wealth should go to balance the scales in Haiti or Somalia?

nb: I have no objection to a more progressive tax system which would take more out of my pocket. But to cover the government costs for needed services, not for an unacheivable "equality".

[ck4829]

24. International scale: As long as we keep it to the global south, right?

How are we doing compared to say... Germany, Israel, South Korea, France, the UK?

Why not our fellow NATO members, our fellow G7 members, our fellow G20 members, our fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council?

[TexasDem69]

4. No

Nope

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. It might help us a little if you were a bit more forthcoming. . . . .nt

[TexasDem69]

12. The question was should we redistribute wealth

And the answer is no. If you need further explanation, we do not and (generally) should not support socialist agendas. I suppose that folks who believe in wealth redistribution should visit a website called Socialist Underground or something similar.

[NanaCat]

14. But of course it's okay

When wealth is redistributed from the lower 99% to the 1%, as it has been since 1981.

[TexasDem69]

16. That's not forced redistribution

Correct?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Try not paying any taxes and see how forced it can be. . . . . nt

[ck4829]

51. So this was freely and consciously chosen? Really?

I mean, I didn't voluntarily choose this, what gives?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Yes, corporate welfare is a thing, and billionaires benefit unequally from infrastructure

Yes, trucks pay road taxes, but the billionaires profiting from roads and airports use them a lot more than a middle class family going to see the Grand Canyon.

And then there is the educational system that they require. The citizens absolutely do benefit well from public education, but the billionaires require a skilled workforce. If education stopped at grade 6, people would still work and eat, but billionaires would take a cut of gigantic proportions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Sorry, but the tax system already redistrubutes wealth and already is socialist

By the way, unless you have Ayn Rand objectivism (which is not libertarianism), then politics is all about juggling wealth redistribution.

The US already is a socialist country. The question is only "how much". There is "Social Insurance" at the least. Do you call FDR a "socialist"? Are you against the Affordable Care Act?

[ck4829]

23. What is socialism? I have heard sex before marriage, statehood for Puerto Rico and DC, and caring about people more than

profits all called socialism.

It just seems that we have a segment of the population that calls anything they don't personally like to be "socialism".

[TexasDem69]

25. Wealth redistribution is socialism

Whether I like it or not. Does President Biden support this nonsense? Did President Obama? The answer is no and no because it’s antithetical to our form of government. Do we have socialist programs around the edges, sure.

[ck4829]

50. So that's why having billionaires is antithetical to our form of government

With them exploiting people to have wealth redistributed to them, tax shelters, flouting laws or outright breaking laws, the concept of "affluenza", etc.

[Happy Hoosier]

38. Do you advocate a fixed tax?

Marginal tax rats do redistribute wealth to some extent. So do public assistance programs. Do you oppose those?

[ck4829]

22. Yes

Yep

[RubyRose]

5. We're to the point where any money collected

above what we take now needs to pay down the debt. The interest we pay is as large as our military budget this year.

[2naSalit]

6. Long overdue.

[aocommunalpunch]

7. They bought the govt through their donations.

Thus, the poor get whatever crumbs they can until critical mass is reached. Then, all bets are off. I imagine it will be messy.

[limbicnuminousity]

8. BBQ is always messy. nt

[mitch96]

10. Where is Robin Hood when you need him:)

[Donkees]

55. Robin Hood Tax - Bernie Sanders 2015

[mitch96]

57. I really like Bernie.. nt

[whathehell]

60. Me too. n/t

[DFW]

13. The trouble with the notion is when the takers are done taking, they end up being keepers, and pretty much always

One elite exterminates the ones who have "too much" and becomes the next elite. 1917, 1938, the "socialist" countries of Eastern Europe, Chávez and Maduro of Venezuela, and a ton of etc.

"We'll spend it on the people! Really! We promise! Eventually, that is. Some day. Really and truly! But for now, the money is in good hands, namely ours."

Sooner or later, they all come to Bill Clinton's conclusion: "I've been poor and I've been rich, and I find that I like rich better."

[whathehell]

35. Lol..Bill Clinton didn't originate that

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

You're off by several decades..It was Charlie Chaplin, and since few of us are afforded, by talent or inheritance, the opportunity to be "rich", I don't see its relevance to this discussion, especially since Chaplin was speaking in binary terms, leaving out the Middle Class.

[DFW]

58. I should have known it was too easy for Bill Clinton to have made it up. Thanks for the clarification.

Still, I find it to be quite relevant to the discussion. Every time the Robin Hood syndrome is given the chance to apply to the new rulers of some country, they always seem to find a reason why their seized wealth needs to stay with them instead of being sold off and/or distributed evenly among the population or being used solely for the common good. At any rate, I wasn't even referring to the ones who are afforded wealth by their own talents or the luck of inheritance. I was referring to those who seize wealth, claiming just cause to do so by the "popular will" inherent in power seized without said popular will. Whether Stalin, Ceauşescu, Chávez/Maduro, Pol Pot, Hoxha, it's the same story everywhere. I was even invited by the post-socialist Romanian government to review part of Ceauşescu's stash of gold (and that was just the coins). Under him, private ownership of gold carried the death sentence. The sacks of gold coins went on and on and on, and he never used one of them to improve the lot of his people, most of whom lived in squalor. Their central bank is still sitting on all of them, by the way. They asked me how long I'd need to review (for authenticity and rarity) 20,000 old American gold coins in their holdings. I said I'd probably need at least a week. I've done this for other central banks before. They were surprised, and said they thought they would need at least five years (!!!). Things move slowly there.

[whathehell]

59. The OP was vague..

but if, by the "Robin Hood syndrome", you mean Communism, I'm out.
The only way I'd be interested in "seizing wealth" would be through taxation. Democratic Socialism or heavily regulated Capitalism works for me.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. When is it NOT the time.

And for what its worth, a plumber or doctor or school teacher who worked hard and built up some modest wealth in a 401 K and the appreciation on the value of their home, are NOT rich.

The Dark Money billionaires are rich. Some celebrities are rich. A few million dollars is comfortable, but not rich in the context of this thread.

[redqueen]

32. Bezos, the Waltons, musk, etc.

Bezos and Nancy Walton own mini cruise ships ffs. There should be a steep luxury tax on yachts and a big fat ridiculous tax on mega yachts.

[pfitz59]

18. Let's start with the churches.

Time to put their filthy lucre to good use.

[TexasDem69]

26. Let's not

Why are you singling out churches?

[Think. Again.]

29. Probably because there's no reason for social clubs to be tax-free.

[TexasDem69]

31. Huh

And here I thought they were a religion. If you want Democrats to become a permanent minority then go ahead and propose this. Does Biden support it? Obama? Any current Democratic senator?

[Think. Again.]

33. Don't change the conversation...

...we weren't discussing campaign platforms.

[TexasDem69]

34. I tend to view things from what's right

And then what’s politically feasible. It isn’t right to tax churches because you think they are a “social club,” and it certainly isn’t politically feasible. Either of those reasons explains there are why no national Democrats calling for this measure.

[Think. Again.]

37. I'm curious...

...other than politically pissing off delusionists, what justification is there for giving self-focussed member groups like churches, sewing circles, Dungeons and Dragons teams, chili cook-off leagues, etc, tax-free status?

[TexasDem69]

40. Do D&D groups get tax free status?

My son would like that. As to why churches have tax free status, there’s this thingy called the First Amendment, and most charities aren’t taxed, etc. But if you think Americans think otherwise then it’s easy enough for someone to float it as part of a political platform.

[Think. Again.]

42. How is a self-serving, group function-oriented organization a charity?

I mean, I know they usually have some canned food in the clubhouse that they'll give you instead of throwing it away but other than trying to build their membership income, what do they do outside of the weekly shows?

[TexasDem69]

45. I haven't been to church in 20 years

Other than a few funerals and a few weddings, so I don’t know what the average church does. But I’m perfectly ok with churches being tax exempt, as are (I assume) the vast majority of Americans. The ones I attended decades ago did real good—AA meetings, food drives, marriage counseling, etc., all sorts of social programs that weren’t available elsewhere. I rarely see anyone seeking to repeal their tax exempt status, except those who are anti-Christian. And they are just another brand of zealot—instead of trying to make everyone Christian they are trying to erase Christianity from the public space.

[Think. Again.]

47. That might not be a bad idea, seeing what it's become.

[ck4829]

56. The real anti-Christian zealots are the seven mountains dominionists

Trying to erase Christianity, those Seven Mountains forces.

Why are the pro-Christians OK with people going bankrupt from medical bills in what is supposed to be the world's greatest healthcare, are we really supposed to believe they are Christian?

[AllyCat]

54. The people are asking for it. Our leaders aren't listening

[whathehell]

36. Um, except they're not social clubs,

in the eyes of those currently making the rules, much as you may dislike that fact.

[Think. Again.]

39. What else are they?

[whathehell]

43. Oh, I don't know..

A religious institution?

[Think. Again.]

44. I see, like comedy clubs are humor institutions.

[whathehell]

46. Riiiiiiiiiiight..Sure..Ok.

Sorry, bro, but that won't fly..It's tough for people like you, I know, but the hard fact is, most people in this country are NOT atheists.

[Think. Again.]

48. Neither am I....

...if I can't prove gods exist, how could I prove they don't?

[whathehell]

49. That's nice..

Buh bye.

[Think. Again.]

27. No reason to "take" from the rich...

...basic adjustments that would equalize what is "taken" by the rich with what is taken by everyone else would suffice.

There is no reason for tax-breaks for anyone if taxes are charged equitably.

[ret5hd]

28. i'll take a thigh.

eat the rich.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

30. As long as

it is not an election slogan we're good.

[whathehell]

41. Do it in the form of taxation.

We've gone from a 90% in the 1940's to a 50% tax rate in the 1960's on the super wealthy to an 8% tax in 5he present ...Reverse that to at least it's rate in the 1960's, and we'll be off to a good start.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. Define Rich in America

By region/State.

Mississippi - 100K a year is 'rich'.

NJ, NYC, MA, CA - Not so much.

In my Borough it puts you in the 22% tax bracket, with an average property tax of $8500 (we fully fund our schools, police, FD, library, etc. etc. - IE - no handouts). Your taxes went up with 2017's tax and jobs scam from the GOP - and so you don't get to claim your NJ Income Tax . . . again we take care of ourselves and pay an inordinate amount into the till while getting relatively little back.

100K in NJ is the working class - and it's intolerable that we would even dream of taking one more thin red cent from them.

No way. So define it by US Region/State.

Couldn't the states all raise their income taxes and property taxes and then see where we land?

[AllyCat]

53. Yes. Next question.

[Fla Dem]

61. Long, long, long overdue.