PDA

View Full Version : Distribution of Wealth




micahnelson
03-28-2010, 11:02 PM
We don't like Government redistribution of wealth, correct?

1) It requires taxation which is usually not apportioned.
2) It violates the principles of a free market by revoking the individual's choice in implementation of their own assets to activities, goods, and services they deem best.
3) It is unconstitutional.

So we don't want the government to take our money and spend it on things for certain people, but are somewhat OK with it being spent on things which are for ALL people (to varying degrees of course), such as roads, courts, and security.

With that in mind, do we have a problem with Wall Street? Were it not for the 401k and IRA programs- many fewer people would be invested. Were it not for US Backed Bonds, Treasury Notes, and massive overspending- the banks that fuel Wall Street would not exist.

With the stock price as the bottom line, we have seen cuts in services, increases in prices, cuts in labor and jobs shipped overseas. Hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions and its all built off government incentives to invest in private markets. Our government built this, it wasn't natural. Is this how we want the economy to work? We understand that it is unprincipled for the government to take money from us and give it to poor people because it violates the concept of individual responsibility. Do we also understand that the government has given a writ of marque to Wall Street to plunder the countryside of its wealth and give it to bankers?

Please understand, I could care less if someone invents something and makes a billion trillion dollars. I don't have a chip on my shoulder against the rich. I have a chip on my shoulder about the rich maintaining wealth not by entrepreneurship, but by bureaucracy and tax structure. Our money is safe from taxes only if we let them play with it for 30 years or so until we retire. That money could be put to our own use. It has a chilling effect on growth which we are all reaping the results of now.

Didn't your wise/drunk uncle always tell you... follow the money? The ones who cheated are usually the ones who are winning- all things being equal.

Indy Vidual
03-29-2010, 09:42 AM
...Do we also understand that the government has given a writ of marque to Wall Street to plunder the countryside of its wealth and give it to bankers?

Certain select 'top-tier' bankers get most of the money.

erowe1
03-29-2010, 10:45 AM
Are you asking if most people here support corporate welfare?

Do you really need to ask?

buck000
03-29-2010, 11:10 AM
End the Fed? ;)

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:00 PM
Are you asking if most people here support corporate welfare?

Do you really need to ask?

I feel like I do.

If someone asked, "Do you support corporate welfare", I think the answer would be "Aboslutely Not", at least from the overwhelming majority of people on this forum.

If someone asked, "Is it right for a select few in this country to have so much compared to the rest of the population?", I'm not sure how they would respond. I have been talking to some tea party folks who view any criticism or concern over the growth of wall street as "socialism".

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:02 PM
Certain select 'top-tier' bankers get most of the money.

Exactly, and just because the money is going to private banks doesn't make it any less egregious of a fraud then if it was being taken by taxation. In fact, with taxation there is a chance some of the money may benefit you.

Kade
03-29-2010, 08:03 PM
We don't like Government redistribution of wealth, correct?

1) It requires taxation which is usually not apportioned.
2) It violates the principles of a free market by revoking the individual's choice in implementation of their own assets to activities, goods, and services they deem best.
3) It is unconstitutional.

So we don't want the government to take our money and spend it on things for certain people, but are somewhat OK with it being spent on things which are for ALL people (to varying degrees of course), such as roads, courts, and security.

With that in mind, do we have a problem with Wall Street? Were it not for the 401k and IRA programs- many fewer people would be invested. Were it not for US Backed Bonds, Treasury Notes, and massive overspending- the banks that fuel Wall Street would not exist.

With the stock price as the bottom line, we have seen cuts in services, increases in prices, cuts in labor and jobs shipped overseas. Hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions and its all built off government incentives to invest in private markets. Our government built this, it wasn't natural. Is this how we want the economy to work? We understand that it is unprincipled for the government to take money from us and give it to poor people because it violates the concept of individual responsibility. Do we also understand that the government has given a writ of marque to Wall Street to plunder the countryside of its wealth and give it to bankers?

Please understand, I could care less if someone invents something and makes a billion trillion dollars. I don't have a chip on my shoulder against the rich. I have a chip on my shoulder about the rich maintaining wealth not by entrepreneurship, but by bureaucracy and tax structure. Our money is safe from taxes only if we let them play with it for 30 years or so until we retire. That money could be put to our own use. It has a chilling effect on growth which we are all reaping the results of now.

Didn't your wise/drunk uncle always tell you... follow the money? The ones who cheated are usually the ones who are winning- all things being equal.


Go away you.

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:05 PM
Go away you.

I sensed a disturbance in the force.

Kade
03-29-2010, 08:16 PM
I sensed a disturbance in the force.

There is a lot of dust on the floor in here.

I'm guessing you skipped out on tea?

Paulfan05
03-29-2010, 08:22 PM
Well I dont really support wealth redistribution, I say if your going to tax people give the rich ones a higher rate.

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:25 PM
I started posting a bit more often after I came to realize, regrettably, that the modern Tea Party movement wasn't just cleverly designed viral marketing for a recent major motion picture.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/depp_madhatter.jpg

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:29 PM
Well I dont really support wealth redistribution, I say if your going to tax people give the rich ones a higher rate.

Redistribution is only discussed if the distribution fails to reflect what we want out of our economy. Do we want someone working 40 hours a week to be unable to support a family?

I don't want the government to come in like Robin Hood and get some of the riches back for us, I want them to fix the system that forces decent people to hide in the woods waiting for benevolent thieves to toss them a haypenny here and there.

tremendoustie
03-29-2010, 08:30 PM
We don't like Government redistribution of wealth, correct?

1) It requires taxation which is usually not apportioned.
2) It violates the principles of a free market by revoking the individual's choice in implementation of their own assets to activities, goods, and services they deem best.
3) It is unconstitutional.

So we don't want the government to take our money and spend it on things for certain people, but are somewhat OK with it being spent on things which are for ALL people (to varying degrees of course), such as roads, courts, and security.

With that in mind, do we have a problem with Wall Street? Were it not for the 401k and IRA programs- many fewer people would be invested. Were it not for US Backed Bonds, Treasury Notes, and massive overspending- the banks that fuel Wall Street would not exist.

With the stock price as the bottom line, we have seen cuts in services, increases in prices, cuts in labor and jobs shipped overseas. Hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions and its all built off government incentives to invest in private markets. Our government built this, it wasn't natural. Is this how we want the economy to work? We understand that it is unprincipled for the government to take money from us and give it to poor people because it violates the concept of individual responsibility. Do we also understand that the government has given a writ of marque to Wall Street to plunder the countryside of its wealth and give it to bankers?

Please understand, I could care less if someone invents something and makes a billion trillion dollars. I don't have a chip on my shoulder against the rich. I have a chip on my shoulder about the rich maintaining wealth not by entrepreneurship, but by bureaucracy and tax structure. Our money is safe from taxes only if we let them play with it for 30 years or so until we retire. That money could be put to our own use. It has a chilling effect on growth which we are all reaping the results of now.

Didn't your wise/drunk uncle always tell you... follow the money? The ones who cheated are usually the ones who are winning- all things being equal.

I oppose aggressive force. Were aggressive force to be eliminated, I am sure wall street would look very different than it does today. You are right to note that it is propped up, to a large degree, by government corporatism.

Vessol
03-29-2010, 08:30 PM
Redistributing the wealth is always a tagline to win the support of the poor, it always means that your wealth is taken and redistributed to the elite.

tremendoustie
03-29-2010, 08:32 PM
Redistribution is only discussed if the distribution fails to reflect what we want out of our economy. Do we want someone working 40 hours a week to be unable to support a family?

I don't want the government to come in like Robin Hood and get some of the riches back for us, I want them to fix the system that forces decent people to hide in the woods waiting for benevolent thieves to toss them a haypenny here and there.

The government themselves, and their cronies, are the thieves. The only "fix" needed is for them to stop stealing.

mediahasyou
03-29-2010, 10:14 PM
Please understand, I could care less if someone invents something and makes a billion trillion dollars. I don't have a chip on my shoulder against the rich. I have a chip on my shoulder about the rich maintaining wealth not by entrepreneurship, but by bureaucracy and tax structure.

...

That money could be put to our own use.

Show me one rich man who doesn't have their money invested or deposited in a bank. Investment fosters growth. Deposits lower interest rates. Lower interest rates foster growth through investment. Thus, money of the rich is put to our own use.

Go learn keynesian or austrian economics and you will find this to be true.

Kade
03-29-2010, 10:33 PM
Show me one rich man who doesn't have their money invested or deposited in a bank. Investment fosters growth. Deposits lower interest rates. Lower interest rates foster growth through investment. Thus, money of the rich is put to our own use.

Go learn keynesian or austrian economics and you will find this to be true.

Show me one rich bank who isn't partaking in some sort of epic malevolent investing with said funds.