I don’t know of very many rich people who got rich by doing that do you? Most rich people like to use their money to make more.

I do know one sure fire way to cause them to do just that though, keep increasing their taxes and they’ll do that or invest in tax free municiple bonds, that’s what the owner of the CO I work for did in 70s when top rate was 70%, he earned 3% interest from taxpayers & paid 0 in taxes!

Reagan lowered top rate to 36% and he started investing in multi-family real estate which now employs over 200 people.

Taking someones property for the exressed purpose to distribute it to others in most cases would be considered theft, if a poor person stole money from a rich person using that reasoning he would go to jail, yet the Gov can and it’s considered just and compassionate.

The fact is that the Top 1% already pay approx. 20% of taxes collected by Gov, top 5% pay approx. 45% & top 10% pay approx. 80% leaving the bottom 20% paying only 20%.

In fact, after the Bush tax cuts in 2003 you will find that the top 1% & top 5% paid a higher % of taxes collected by the Gov in 2005 than they did in 2000 even though we always heard the tax cuts largely went to rich, that was only true in total $ terms, the cuts removed millions from paying any taxes at all, increased child credit from $500 to $1,000 & reduced rates for all which resulted in the rich paying larger share of taxes collected by the Gov.

I feel low income earners should pay nothing, middle income earners should pay 15% on the amount of income they earn above poverty level & the rest should pay 15% on all income, in this case someone who makes $100 million will pay $15 million in taxes while someone who makes $50K would pay about $4,500. In this case the middle income guy would pay less in his entire life than the rich guy pages in 1 year!

I think we should try to focus on creating more rich people in order to grow Gov revenue rather than inceasingly punishing the current rich to do so.

Oh, and by the way, I just paid almost $2.00 more for a pack of Cigs as a result of recent Obama tax increase, that’s about $600 a year at a pack a day, I’m happy to learn that I am now part of the top 5% of income earners while making $50k a year (Obama was supposedly only going to increase the top 5%) & planning carbon tax the will be passed on to every American & will no doubt have a negative effect on jobs of people in certain industries.

The point really comes down to the size & scope of Gov., the larger the Central Gov gets the less freedom we have and the more control they gain over the means of pruduction, hence, Socialism! Might not be total Socialism, but there is no doubt that were headed there.

Fergus, Smith’s words point directly to the current system of taxation in the U.S. No one argues that it is an unfair system. They just argue how much is fair. But Obama’s words are: “redistribute wealth.” That is a SOCIALIST tenant. To deny that is sheer ignorance of the political philosophy that is so clearly there. And unless you can come up with a new explanation (which I doubt), you should spend a little more time understanding it.

As noted above, the current U.S. tax system is a welfare system in which the rich contribute a higher proportion to the government so that they can take care of the poor. It’s a winning proposition for all involved because no one is starving in the streets.

Redistribution of wealth equalizes money evenly to all. That takes away from the rich and gives to the poor to make everyone live on a similar financial plane.

Failure to understand the difference could result in real trouble. The American people are not being sold an honest bill of goods by the Obama camp. That’s all I’m saying.

The following quote gives the lie to these assertions:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

This quote comes not from Karl Marx, but from Adam Smith in his classic statement of capitalist theory “The Wealth of Nations”.

Anyone still think Obama’s a Socialist?

So what is the feeling, who is going to win?

The polls suggest McCain is recovering ground and making it very close.

I cannot imagine how anyone would want McCain to be President, I’m not sure he is actually fit to be. He always comes across a bit simple to me.

I guess I dont understand whether the argument is for economic growth or “quality of life.” The assumption seems to be that redistribution of wealth is good because it both encourages economic growth and reduces inequality. Is this correct?