Forum Post: Please succinctly describe or elaborate on "redistribution of wealth". Are you saying TAKE AWAY their money and assets, OR are you saying redistribution of Spending Power, which means they get to keep what is theirs but the economy becomes egalitarian???
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 9:37 p.m. EST by SirPoeticJustice
(628)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In other words, does it apply retroactively to all currently held wealth and capital or does it apply only to newly created wealth from this point forward?
Read this: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Answer your own question.
Remove and/or ignore the uncompassionate. We no longer choose such an influence. And then create a world from there. Money and assets are meaningless when synthetic limitations are unveiled.
Turn on, Tune in, Take Over (old Zippie Saying). We can make the rich go to re-education camps to learn about compassion and such.
All taxes are a redistribution of wealth.
If you had a 50% flat tax, you could pay for all current govt programs plus have enough left over to pay every worker a $40k citizen dividend.
That would eliminate a lot of the inequality and make society more egalitarian without any additional interference in the market.
Flat sales tax or flat income tax? Shouldn't income tax be on a sliding scale?
A flat income tax.
The reason why it doesn't need to be on a sliding scale is because you are getting the $40k dividend.
If you make $50k, you would pay $25k in taxes and get a $40k dividend. So your take-home pay, after taxes, would be $65k.
I like that too... but I still say we need to freeze assets and level the playing field first.
Perhaps a one time 60% tax on net worth of the top 1%...
pay off the national tab...
then your 50-50 with 40k dividend plan.
Do we get health care?
People accept income taxes as fair.
I don't think you will get people to think taxing 60% of the property you own as fair.
Healthcare could be paid for with a 12% tax. I think something like that could be graduated where higher income earners pay a higher rate and lower income earners pay a lower rate.
We all "apparently' agreed to a multi trillion bank bailout.
A bailout is not the equivalent to taking 60% of someone's property.
I like that. Unfortunately in order to get the Republicans to agree, it would have to be substantially less. Maybe 37% flat tax. close all the tax loopholes and make the corporate tax rate the same flat tax and it could be as low as 34%
97% of all workers make a below average income.
If 97% of all workers demanded that they get part ownership of the economy or they will go on strike, the 50% tax increase will look like a good deal.
The wealthy people that the republicans lobby on behalf of only have their wealth because they convinced 97% of the workforce to accept a below-average income.
Once the workforce wakes up and sees the raw deal they are getting, and they organize, capitalism comes to an end.
Are we negotiating? 39%??? LOL I like you my friend. I am happy to meet good people on here.
Your facts are incorrect.
My facts are not incorrect.
Our GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
We worked a total of 222,736 million hours in 2010
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=212&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
When you divide the 2 numbers, you get the average hourly wage of $65.22 which is an average yearly income of $135,654.
That income according to census.gov is more than what 97% of all workers make.
A simple division problem will give you the numbers you desire...but the numbers are still wrong.
Also, your wording is misleading.
So the BEA does not accurately report the national account numbers? lol
What is misleading about my wording!?!
Do you even know what GDP is? You are comparing it to work hours almost as if it is the amount of money that was paid out during those 222,736 hours. Gross Domestic Product is the market value of domestic goods and services produced.
Learn what things are before you start blindly dividing.
"I am continually arguing your main point that GDP / total works hours = average income. All you seem to do is attack me personally."
Right, my links to BEA guides and tables is just a personal attack against you.
.
"you seriously can't think your numbers are accurate."
You seriously can't think you know more about GDP than the BEA does.
"But GDP DOESN'T equal total income, that's why you DON'T use that number."
So what they teach in econ 101 is wrong, what simple common sense would lead most people to believe is wrong, the BEA's guide on NIPA accounts which says GDI equals GDP is wrong and the BEA's tables which show the 2 numbers being equal is wrong?
You are only digging yourself deeper.
I am continually arguing your main point that GDP / total works hours = average income. All you seem to do is attack me personally.
What about contract work? Home-based work? Volunteer hours? Foreign assets? GDP increases with divorce when money changes hands... you seriously can't think your numbers are accurate.
"GDP increased with the Oil Spill in the gulf...is that appropriate? It's not that your math is flawed, your numbers are."
I'm saying that GDP equals total income, that is why you use that number in order to calculate average income.
Of course people doing clean up should be included in that number because they are getting paid an income to do it!!
Our ability to clean, repair, and maintain is part of our productive capacity and is some of the things people get paid to do and should be part of GDP.
You just continue to double down on stupid.
But GDP DOESN'T equal total income, that's why you DON'T use that number.
here is BEA's chart of gross domestic income:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=51&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
It is also $14.5 trillion.
You shouldn't double down on stupid.
GDP treats every monetary transaction as a positive; including divorce and natural disasters. GDP increased with the Oil Spill in the gulf...is that appropriate? It's not that your math is flawed, your numbers are.
"You are under the assumption that everything we produce we buy. You are also incorrect about the calculation and check system that the BEA uses."
So you are doubling down on your ignorance?
You cannot produce something unless you have the income to produce it. You cannot produce anything unless someone's income is being spent on it.
If a product never gets sold, it gets treated as if the company that made it bought it.
The point of income is to buy what we produce, not buy a portion of what we produce.
You can read the BEA guide here:
ciser.cornell.edu/NYCRDC/helpful_links/bea-nipaguide-200209.pdf
Go to page 5 under the Major Aggregates section where they say GDP should equal GDI (gross domestic income)
What you're saying is that everything that is made and sold in America is bought by Americans; that's false.
You don't understand GDP.
In order to purchase all the things we produce, an equivalent amount in income needs to be paid out. So total income equals GDP.
In fact, the BEA computes GDP using 2 methods. They compute it by adding up the value of all the final goods and services produced and they compute it by adding up all the income paid out in wages, interest, rent and profit. The two numbers must be equal.
You should at least understand the subject before you start criticizing someone about it. Otherwise, you will look foolish.
You are under the assumption that everything we produce we buy. You are also incorrect about the calculation and check system that the BEA uses.
I say FREEZE ASSETS.
When you look at the broad picture. (In the US) the 99% have recently incurred 30 Trillion in debt to increase the net worth of the 1%, who once had 20 Trillion... to 50 Trillion.
And you want me to pay on that? Right.
The 1% have 50 Trillion in net worth
The nation has 14 Trillion in national debt.
Our homes are mortgaged for another 10 Trillion.
Our people are in for another 6 Trillion in credit cards and personal loans.
Freeze. Pay off the tab. Then change the rules so it doesn't happen again.
Let the people decide what we do with the 20 Trillion in spare change.
"If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State."
"This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime's debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls with the fall of this power."
"The reason these "odious" debts cannot be considered to encumber the territory of the State, is that such debts do not fulfill one of the conditions that determine the legality of the debts of the State, that is: the debts of the State must be incurred and the funds from it employed for the needs and in the interests of the State."
Alexander Nahum Sack
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".
United States Declaration of Independence
The 1% is the Oligarchy of Despotism,
-yoccupy
Did the bank force you to take a mortgage? Did the credit card company force you to get a credit card? Were you forces to take a personal loan? NO YOU WEREN'T, you were just being greedy and living beyond your means. Have some personal responsibility and quit crying for the 1% to pay off your bills.
no , make laws that force the creation of jobs. solved
Fascism communism its all the same then. Its just which ideolgic jerk is holding the gun to your head telling you about how to show morality to everyone else. You can't just FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. They have to BELIEVE in what they are doing is righteous.
i see. so the ban on smoking should not exit then? the laws that force us to do right even though we dont want to are what then? and that same force should not be applied to corporations and the government?
All im saying is there is a fundamental reason why so many people don't like the smoking ban even though they support it. I do. Its just that people don't like to feel forced into doing something. Period. Lest it create unwanted unjustified resentment. Social ostracism is a powerful motivator. And for business boycott em. Fiat wealth is their blood.
Close your bank account. It kills two birds with one stone. You keep your money and they lose it. The only way to win is to hit them where it hurts.