Re-distribution of wealth?
the bailout package is giving money from the tax payer and handing it to wall-street so that the rich can survive after they have made millions of dollars and through their own practices crippled America now America has to "bail" the rich man out
then people complain when Obama wants (in simple terms)
TO TAKE IT BACK!!
why are people afraid of this? why is it that you can take BILLIONS and give it to the rich to "aid" and you cannot "aid" the "average Joes" because let's face it Joe will be smiling when he gets his tax cut in what ever form it comes.
do you agree that Redistribution has been going on but it has been upwards in the expectation so that it will trickle down when it obviously has not? and now when someone says let's invest not in the rich but into America and Americans all of a sudden it's a problem.
your views on re-distribution of wealth please.
and why does it "make some people scared to get money back"
- srdongato2Lv 51 decade agoBest Answer
Most conservatives were against the bail out. They understand that too much government intervention is the problem. If the government, under the Clinton administration, didn't pressure the banks and mortgage companies to make loans that, under good sound business principles they wouldn't have made, this whole mess most likely wouldn't have happened.
Barack Obama wasn't talking about taking back the bail out. He's been talking about redistribution of wealth since the very beginning. He wants to raise taxes on the top income earners who already pay most of the taxes and give it to those who don't earn as much and pay a much lower percentage in taxes. That may sound good, but it just takes money from those who create jobs and put it in the hands of politicians. They are the ones who then decide who gets that money.
Redistribution has been going on, but it hasn't been upwards. When politicians say that they are giving corporations billions of dollars it usually means that they are actually letting them keep more of the money they earned or they are just giving them back some of the money that the corporations paid in taxes. They can then reinvest it into the business and create more jobs. The problem is the government is taking too much in the first place. We have a 35% corporate income tax rate which is the second highest in the world. We are losing jobs overseas to countries which have been lowering their tax rates and consequently their economies are booming. Whenever anything does trickle down the government is there to take its part and there is very little left to trickle down to the rest of us. This is why the government has to be taken out of the process and should only collect taxes on the end product. Income taxes punish achievement.
We need tax reform so that the trickle will not only be a trickle it will be a gusher that we can all benefit from.Source(s): www.fairtax.org
- PaulLv 41 decade ago
I do not like redistribution of wealth. Just look at this scenario:
Bob is rich. Joe is poor.
Bob is taxed so much he is poor. Joe gets tax cuts and is rich.
Joe, as a rich person, is taxed so much he is poor. Bob gets tax cuts and is rich.
Bob gets taxed and is poor, Joe gets tax cuts and is rich.
And so on, and so on....
Yes, I know this is simpler and more severe than Obama's actual plan but hopefully you get the point.
So why not cut taxes for everyone, so everyone can have the chance to be wealthy. We don't need to take wealth from some people and give it to others, we need to create more wealth so everyone can prosper.
- 4 years ago
What you have to understand is that not all income is earned. Sometimes, people get benefits they don't need but far more damaging is the accumulation of surplus wealth. You see, when only a few own the means of production, only that few get to decide how much to pay the employees and since these businesses are for-profit they will try to maximise their profit margins by paying the employees as little as they can get away with. Thus, the employees effectively embezzle money from the people that work for them. For money workers, no matter how much they contribute to the profit of the business will receive the same pay while the investors and employers will obtain more money the more the business works. And after a point one doesn't need to work to earn money, they can just invest it or buy a business and hire someone else to run it so they do nothing but yet still take a cut of the business's profits they own the product. A hard working proletarian can perhaps get prompted but only when it is in the employer's interest to do so. The interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are thus conflicting. Redistribution of wealth is to me the necessary means to ensure that everyone gets close to the money they have earned when the mean of production is privately owned. The best way to do this are progressive taxation used to pay for public services. This works on the twin policies of "from him according to his contribution" within the limits of "from him according to his ability to him according to his need".
- RYLv 51 decade ago
I think it is fair that he take the tax cut back that Bush gave the wealthy and redistribute it to the middle class.. The Wealthy had it since 2001 and it did not trickle down, he said when the time line expire he will not renew it for the Wealthy, but middle class talk as if he wants to take money out of their paycheck, they seem more upset about it than the Wealthy, I do not understand this.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I was against the Bail Out.
Redistribution of Wealth is one of the basic premises of Socialism. The USA's economy is based on Capitalism. The richest 5% of Americans pay 70% of taxes already. Taxing them more will only hurt the economy more. They are the business owners who hire the regular Joe's. If you tax them more they will either have to lay off employees or charge you more for their products.
I guess you weren't around for the Carter years. He tried this same route and it killed our economy. Socialism does not work.
The Government has no right to take my money and give it to whoever they want. I am perfectly capable of deciding what charity I want to give my money to. I don't need the Government deciding for me.
Obama does not want to take back the Bail Out money, he wants to give more Bail Outs. Didn't you listen to his campaign?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I am also in favor of it, mostly because the "Average Joe" is the middle class that is MAKING the wealthy wealthier, and it's kind of about time that the middle class got some slack.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I am in favor of it, the foolish American that is not and even defends the wealthy lives under the silly assumption that they too will someday be rich
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I agree with you
People making over 1.09 trillion per year shoul pay more than people making $3.75 per hour (some restaurants pay this much)