Raise taxes on the Super-wealthy! (wealth-redistribution if you want)

[Syrinx]

Firstly, money is a social construct that, conceptually, is awarded to an entity for providing some useful good or service, to an individual or group, or to society at large.

When one individual has as much wealth as 40 percent of American households combined, it's time to redistribute the wealth. http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.htm

Let's take a look at the ten wealthiest people in America. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6082174/

Numbers one and three are Bill Gates and Paul Allen of Microsoft fame. Gates gives a good bit of money to charity and Allen built a wicked cool rock and roll museum, but what have they really done for society in the big picture? They built fortunes through dishonest and monopolistic business practices, and stifling competition.

Warren Buffett is sandwiched between the Microsoft buddies. He has a fortune around $41 billion, amassed through a history of impressive stock-picking. How has this stock-picking acumen really benefitted anyone but Buffett himself?

Positions four through eight on the list are owned by the heirs to Sam Walton, the founder of Wal Mart. They have a combined wealth of about $90 billion. They have amassed their fortunes through their exploitation of the environment, the communites in which they operate, and their employees. And mostly by being born.

Number nine is Michael Dell. I don't have a lot to say about him. Except that he gave $200,000 to the 2000 campaign of George W. Bush. I wonder why he did that?

And then there's Larry Ellsion. He's a lot like Gates. Using dirty tactics, he built a huge technology company. And then, sensing an opportunity to make even a lot more money to buy private planes, boats, and islands, lobbied the government to set up a proprietary database on all American citizens. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/1,63450-0.html

In that list, I can't locate a person who truly deserves the trappings of their immense wealth. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to take all their money away, but is too much to ask that they make a meaningful contribution to the people of the nation that has been so excessively kind to them?

Given the huge numbers of Americans who live in poverty, given the numbers of people who don't have health insurance, given the numbers that aren't adequately educated, given the numbers of people that aren't give a fair chance at realizing their potential, is it too much to ask that these pampered billionaires pay their fair share to help America to be all that it can be?

Or is that just too much to ask?

[breakfastofchampions]

1. Why just them?

Peter Singer says it is morally right to give away everything we have above 30,000 a year.

[Syrinx]

2. I'm sorry I don't know who that is

[breakfastofchampions]

3. A pretty famous philosopher

He literally wrote the book on Animal Liberation.

[Syrinx]

4. okay

I'm firm that animals should be treated well, but the Animal Liberation stuff, from what I've heard, sounds pretty nutty. Basic economic fairness is not in that category. But thanks for playing. ;)

[breakfastofchampions]

5. He's more than that

I actually wrote an essay on his version of utilitarianism which is why I mentioned him. He's not just some nutty animal lib guy, he's teaching at Princeton right now.

[Syrinx]

6. fine

I don't see how that has anything to do with me or my post. I like animals, believe they should be treated humanely, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[breakfastofchampions]

7. He has a lot to say about wealth redistribution

I was just giving you some context about where you might have heard of the guy because Animal Liberation is his most famous work.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. The "Rich" would never stand for a return to tax increases and

wealth redistribution in this country. I think that they'd sooner move their assets to neutral bank accounts in Bermuda and relinquish their U.S. citzenship.

[magellan]

13. They've already done that to avoid what taxes they have

If they don't like paying more taxes, they can follow their money and get the hell out. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Ganja Ninja]

9. I could see it for anyone making more than 5 million a year.

Put them in a 60% tax bracket. Anyone with more than 20 million dollars in assets should pay 5% on those assets. They should also do away with tax shelters & breaks for offshore corporations. The rich have been getting an enormous break for the last 6 years and now it's time to kick in their share plus make up for the free ride they've been getting.

[Syrinx]

11. I don't know what the numbers should be

But the ones you offer don't sound unreasonable to me.

[KyuzoGator]

10. Buffett made his fortune running a hedge fund.

Sure, he "picked stocks" for himself. He also did it for thousands of other people.

I really hate the term "wealth distribution" because it implies that we want to take money away from people who earned it and give it to those who did not. Our tax brackets aren't even close to representing the present distribution, though.

[Syrinx]

12. Actually, I hate the term too

What sparked my rant was hearing Hannity on TV spouting about the evil liberals' plans for "Redistribution of Wealth." I don't even remember who the guest was, but he barely lets his guests speak anyway.

The idiocy and hypocrisy is just mind-blowing. We have seen the greatest "Redistribution Of Wealth" of all time during the last five years. Only it's been from the poor and middle-class TO the super-wealthy. And it ticks me off.

(And I would pick Warren Buffett as the least objectionable on that list.)