An Open - Letter to My Pro - Obama Friends (lengthy read)

[throwedindagame]

Whats this talk about wealth redistribution like it's a new phenomenon.

It's been going on for years, it's nothing new. It's called taxes.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by mr delorean

Originally Posted by Essential1

When people discuss tax cuts it is always yeah let's help the rich to help the poor. They deserve the most money back. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! Actually no you don't you make the most money so why do you deserve the most money back in taxes?? When we have done this you have proven that you don't help everyone else you walk away when you see people ask for a hand or even a tiny bit of help. I am not saying socialism where we all make set wages BUT we are not taking your wealth and redistributing your wealth under Obama. You pay 3% extra in taxes which lets say is $7,500 of $250,000 you can't afford that? If you can't on the let's say about $75,000 you already pay 1. you are living beyond your means. 2. get an accountant or someone else to do your taxes. Just because you are marginally wealthy doesn't mean you don't have to spend money wisely. I know what your saying would you want to pay taxes that high if you were making $250,000 the answer is yes as long as my money isn't just being wasted on something stupid and is actually being "trickled down" to people who need it. That is the true term of what trickle down is supposed to be it is supposed to benefit everyone not just a selected. By the way 95% of America makes less than 250K so majority benefits.

You say that Obama isn't looking out for America, if that's how you think maybe YOU should look out for America first.

all youre doing is rationalizing. the point isnt whether or not i am able to afford to pay more taxes. someone else shouldnt be allowed to make that decision for me. i have no problem with those who may want to voluntarily give up more of their hard earned income. obama got plenty of votes, let the half of the country that voted for him and his policies make up that slack. put YOUR money where your mouth is, not mine.

so is your response everyone should set their own tax rates??

 

[duerr]

Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame

Whats this talk about wealth redistribution like it's a new phenomenon.

It's been going on for years, it's nothing new. It's called taxes.

Actually, it's called Socialism.

 

[purplehazze96]

We're still doing this? really?

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

Originally Posted by KanyeWestJayZ4life

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity


[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]and wealth redistribution (I'm old fashioned and believe that theft is wrong even when the government does it)[/color] because we may not be on the same page on these issues. (However, on the issue of wealth redistribution, I will say this: Do you really believe that the same man who voted to bail out billionaire bankers at the expense of ordinary taxpayers is really going to help the poor stick it to the rich? Really?)

I almost stopped reading after that. I'm glad I kept on reading though, your claims gradually got less ridiculous.

Is it that ridiculous for a me expect to keep everything I have earned?

1. Don't pay taxes if you think your wealth is being redistributed ... 2.

Like the post says . . . we won't agree on the issue of government theft . . . buuut I have to address your points

1. "don't pay taxes" . . . come now . . . like it's optional . . .

so then why are you complaining.. you're getting robbed eitherway

why would you even talk politics if any candidate is robbing you?

 

[rexanglorum]

Essential, I really suggest you forget everything you believe you know about economics and start all over again. I am not saying change your political valuesbut you may want to sometimes look at economics less through a lens of absolutes or good and evil or selfless versus greedy.

Thoughtful consideration of economics and economic policy will almost by nature, be very nuanced and will look at things in terms of degrees of change andwill be kind of boring at times. If your pulse goes up while talking about economics you are either overly dramatizing it or you are a nerd like me.Furthermore, economic thinking is also apolitical or at least that is the case with good economic thinking. Also, it would be helpful for you to look ateconomic theories that are presented by people who study it for a living as opposed to politicians who care more about narrative then about facts anddefinitely do not get your economic information from pundits or others in the media, who often times fail to understand economics (not that it stops them fromhaving extremely strong opinions).

Please do not think that I am picking on you by commenting on some of the things you have said. I made almost all of those same errors at one time or anothermyself and many people say or believe what you say so what you have out forth is worth reacting to because many people believe what you have articulated. Also,if I thought you were an idiot, I would not being taking the time to respond to you. But since you seem like someone who is passionate about doing the rightthing, you will probably take the time o read what I am saying.

Over the past 25 years except Clinton and first Bush because Bush did raise taxes we have figured that the rich prospering = prosperity for the poor. Sounds like a good idea. But it is 100% false.


If you hold everything else constant, do you really think tha tax increases are good for economic growth and will increase standards of living? This is notabout rich and poor it is abour productive and unproductive. When you tax something you get less of it and an income tax is a tax on those who are productiveand productivity is what makes a country a rich country and low productivity is what make poor countries poor. Heavu taxation on those wh oare productive doesnot benefit society as whole, whether you are rich, poor or in the middle.

Even if you want look at this throug hthe lens of binary lass structure, the truly rich do not work or they do not have to work so they often times have verylow incomes because tehy have lots of wealth. Taxes on incomes that are in some upper percentile, say 10% fall on lots of decidely not rich people, who areolder and in their peak earning years (after many years of being in low tax brackets) and/or they are professionals who had to borrow a lot of money to getthrough college and graduate school.

Think of trickle down as rain.


I already have said this but it is worth repeating. Trickle down economics only exists in the minds of those who dislike any economic policy that involveslower taxes and smaller government. Also when you responded to my post, you assumed that investor is interchangable with rich. While a lot of the money that isinvested is invested by very rich individuals or financial institutions, there are many smaller investors who have a few thousand dollars in stocks, they havea pension that buys stocks or other investments or they have retirement nest egg that is invested in financial markets. So please do not assume that investormeans rich or super rich.

Now when it comes to thinking of wealth like rain, you are clouding the reality of the situation. While a lot of wealth is indeed inherited, much of it iscraeted anew with every generation and it is created by work, it is not manna that falls from heaven. Of course there is some randomness to who has what andthat is because of inherited wealth or social and political privileges but again, people create wealth and they have some say in the outcome.

You mentioned that the poor work hard and you are correct. Farmers who live in a third world, work more hours and toil in much harder conditions thanAmericans, who make a hundred times as much and work in air conditioned offices. You know one of the biggest reasons why? This country has a very large capitalstock, we have a lot of the means of production and that is why an ordinary worker in the US can make more in a week then poor farmers can make in a year.

The reason why we have that captal stock is because all sorts of people, rich and non rich, buy stocks, buy bonds, put their money in savings accounts and thatmoney goes to businesses, big and small, that want to expand their capital stock. That expansion of the capital stock is what makes labor more productive,lowers unemployment and raises wages. Eventually, those business, who borrowed money to expand, pay back the bond and stock holders and those bond and stockholders make a profit and taht profit is called capital gains. When you tax those capital gains, you will have less people buying bonds and stocks andbusinesses borrow less, expand at a closer pace, labor becomes less productive, wages and employment fall and no one, especially the poor wins from thispolicy.

1. Individual tax cuts to the wealthiest does not create jobs. Ironically the wealthiest are greedy and pocket the money. 2. Tax cuts to corporations have also shown to be futile in creating jobs because you guessed it the owners of the corporation pocket 90% of the money.


What happens when they pocket that money, those put it in the bank and buy stocks and bonds and that means that the process that I just described accelerates.That is not a bad thing at all. Also remember that we are talking about tax cuts here, it means that you have to make that money and then the government merelytakes a smaller cut that it had taken before. That is not unreasonable and is hardl yan example the rich having wealth showered upon them.

You need to look also. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ANYONE CAN DO. STIMULUS AND BAILOUT HAD TO BE DONE. Banks don't get the bailout they fail. Further unstablizing our economy. Corporation don't get help they fail. Furthering the job lose. Sure they needed to clearly lay out how money should have been spent by them and Obama has more oversight of money than Bush cared to but to say those were not needed at all is highly reckless and uneducated.


This is why taking economic advice from politicians and pundits is not very helpful. The bailouts are exactly what you did not want. The bailouts are exactlythe showering of wealth on the wealthiest. This is the "trickle down" policy that lower income or capital gain taxes are not.

Also government created jobs are a bad idea. So would you say global warming is 100% a farce and that the creation of green jobs is not only a bad idea but would not create jobs and not prosper our economy? Also infrastructure is not necessary? So our roads do not need paving? Our bridges don't need to secured? Our buildings don't need maintainence?


Once again, you should be more increduluous of what politicians (even Barack Obama) say about the economy. They have no interest in getting it right, they wantto win elects and accumulate power.

Look at it from this way being rich is a priviledge not a right. Yes higher title jobs have higher pay. BUT DO NOT FOR 1 MINUTE THINK YOU WORK HARDER THAN ANYONE ELSE.


Without property rights, we have no prosperity at all. Much of Western history is the struggle for property rights to be honored. When property rights arehonored, societies tend to prosper and even, nay, especially the poorest people tend to benefit from the resulting economic growth. The poorest societies inthe world tend to have the weakest sets of property rights. If you earn a lot of money and accumulate a lot of property, you should not have it confiscated.Property ownership is a fundamental human right and is no privilege that can be taken away on a whim. In some places that is the case but they tend to be verypoor so there is very little property to be taken.

When people discuss tax cuts it is always yeah let's help the rich to help the poor.


In your view it is but for those who understand economics, there is technically no such things as rich and poor, only people, resources and the decisions thatpeople make about those scarce resources. Taxes and every type of law are really bundles of incentives that effect those decisions and those decisions effectthe quality of our lives. I believe that we should aim for a high quality of life. I am sure you believe the same but you need to be very careful when youdiscuss a potential law because it is not about what the law commands, it is abut the incentives and the decisions that the new law creates.

They deserve the most money back. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! Actually no ... spend money wisely.


This is really where conservatives and libertarians diverge with progressives. You seem to want to tax people simply because they have a certain amount ofmoney. In other words, progressives think like bank robbers, they go where the money is. We need taxation but we need it as means is an end and not an ends myitself.

Also if, or when you make a quarter million or more (and I wish you best of luck in doing so), why don't you donate much of what you make to a charity thatyou think will help people. I have a feeling that you would make a larger positive impact than if the Federal government takes it and doles much of it out inbank bailouts, auto company subsidies, farm subsidies, social security payments to wealthy retirees and no bid contracts. If you want money to go towardshelping people, one of the last places you want to send it is to Washington, where most of that money will be used to buy votes from wealthy and middle classfolks who vote and very little will actually go towards making the lives of the less fortunate better.


I look forward to your response and if you want me to go more in depth on anything, just ask or PM me.

 

[rexanglorum]

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

When a politician decides he is going to take money and "put it into the economy" he assumes the mantle of economic planner - trying to spoonfeed credit and spending "into an economy" that is suffering from the effects of 2 decades of excess of both. Gov'ts have no money - they have to take the funds from you and me and spend it on a make work, unproductive, non wealth generating job. This comes at the expense of multiple jobs that will never see the light of day in the real, wealth producing, sustainable economy. The net effect is a negative. To make matters worse, govt jobs need not justify their existence - they merely take money from our pockets to fund themselves. Private enterprise, in contrast, has to justify every single job. Every job in the private market - aside from industries propped up by government subsidies (auto, farming, airline) has to justify its existence - otherwise it will not exist. Even stock brokers who add almost 0 added value, had to convince us that they were worth the money they got paid. Unlike politicians, they lack the coercive power to simpley take our money.

Thank you for doing what I did not do in my last post and show how "creating jobs" with make work programs does not really create wealthor get us out of a recession. Unemployment is a problem, it is causing hardships in people's lives and if you want to address it, it is probably moreefficient to give people more unemployment benefits.

Some of these infrastructure projects will add value, some may even add more value than the cost. It is sad commentary on this bill when its advocates say thatsome of the items will represent a net gain for society. It has better because when you spend that much, there should be some items that can pass acost-benefit muster.


So some people are suggesting, or rather order, Obama's critics to silence themselves. Putting aside how shameful these brown shirt tactics are, for amoment, I agree that everyone should give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt because he has only been in office for short period of time thus far and tahtis reasonable. It is also reasonable, to be a bit increduluous when President Obama is promising to do what has never been done before and that is to spend andinvest such a large amount of wealth and to do it far more efficiently than if those same resources were left to market decision making. If he proves to be thenext successful central planner he will be the first and that would be truly historic.

 

[curtiscarter23]

Originally Posted by The Yes Guy

I thought that Obama was the lesser of two evils due to his views social and civil liberties, and I still do. I don't support Ron Paul, either. No one fits me.

You know its pretty bad when that saying gets thrown in!

 

[wrukus]

dangit! i knew i voted for the wrong guy. dang!

naw honestly, it was gonna be one or the other. you even stated in your last paragraph that obama was better than mccain, and that's how i voted. i doagree that there really isnt that big of a difference between democrat and republicans though, and i dont expect obama's presidency to be that much betterthan mccain's would have been. better is still better though.