Should money be taken away from the wealthy to give to the poor?
Like for the healthcare to raise taxes for the rich
AND WHY do you think yes or no
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
This is a bit simplistic in perspective...no offense. If you study what is referred to as "supply-side" economics that all of our last three Republican presidents used as a so-called economic policy (and all three administrations causing havoc, to include the collapse of our savings and loans industry that President Clinton inherited if you are old enough to recall), you will perhaps learn that "Reaganomics" (a.k.a., "voodoo" economics) gives disproportionate (huge) tax cuts to the wealthiest billionaires in the hopes that these billionaires will then spend enough to have its positive effects "trickle on down" to the rest of society. Doesn't work...never did. Our middle-class all but disappeared, and they (along with small businesses) are the backbone of our economy. Why doesn't it work? Because not content with the tax cuts to their billions, the rich got greedier and wanted to expand their profit margins even more...so they began moving their companies (and the jobs those companies represented for the American worker) to places like India, where the average annual salary is $300/year. The taxes of which you are speaking are simply a RETURN to the tax rates they had during Clinton years---a time of tremendous prosperity and strength for this country. When Bill Clinton left after eight years as our President, he had a surplus of $271 billion; had paid down our deficit by $362 billion; and had created 2.2 million jobs---all squandered by the Bush/Cheney administration (Flynt, 2004). And what you don't seem to understand about taxes, which have been turned wrongly into a "dirty word" by propagandizing right-wingers, is that they are used to support all of the things Americans take for granted, but use or rely on every single day: roads, bridges, school systems, public school teachers, public parks, highways, etc...just a tremendous amount of return for the investment. And middle- to low-income families actually get their taxes back at the end of the year, especially if they have dependents. The money is not "taken away" from the wealthy actually, because the taxpayers continue to benefit from its use and our nation is made stronger, our revenues swell (which helps reduce our deficit---something that hurts everyone for generations to come)...all countries have a tax system, but what Democrats have always tried to do is make sure the tax system in the U.S. is fair. Right now, there is very little fairness, but President Obama is attempting to change that in ways that benefit consumers and working Americans, and the wealthy will still have their multiple homes, their yachts, their multi-million dollar bonuses, their private jets, and all the other perks that come with wealth---but they will now pay their fair share in taxes, as many of them are in favor of doing (Warren Buffett being one of them). An analogy you might understand is a large family with many children where the parents work to provide all of the basic luxuries and necessities, but the children each have to do their part too--they each have a contribution to make prorated by age and abilities so that the burdens of the household do not fall only on the shoulders of the ones already carrying the biggest portion of responsibility. The principle is similar. Rational moderation seems to be the key for balance.
- Marty LLv 41 decade ago
The top 1% of the people have more $$$$ than the bottom 90% ccombined. We expect patriotic young men and women to be willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of their country. We should expect the super rich to sacrifice some of their tremendously excessive wealth to save their country.
But, Bushenomics gave these very people even bigger tax cuts. 55 cents of every Bush/Cheney tax cut dollar went to these already super rich people. Bush/Cheney reduced safeguards and eliminated many regulations for these people. (We can certainly expect the Billionaires to forgo personal greed and put the honest needs of the country first)
Trickle down economics was supposed to create more jobs and increase wages. So how well did that work? The ultra wealthy outsourced jobs , reduced wages, increased their own profits, and bought more mansions, more Ferrari's and bigger yachts.
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE, READ THE ACCURATE, AND WELL WRITTEN, EXPLANATION OF "ARMCHAIR GODDESS."
- 1 decade ago
Has it EVER worked out well? Russia? Cuba? North Korea? Vietnam? China? Venezuela?
It has not. The rich are rich because they provide goods and services others want, and they manage their money well. The poor are poor mostly because they do the opposite.
If you took all the money and property in America and divided it evenly, it would all be back where is is now in a few years.
If, like Russia, you take it all away, divide it up, and make it impossible to earn back, you will see those who were rich simply opt out. You can force it at gunpoint for a while, but not forever. We are free people, and capitalism is the only truly desirable system.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That's what we do already.
The rich pay something like 90% of all tax revenues.
And the poor take all the money to the dog track and the casino and the convenience store for beer and cigarettes. Then their family eats food they took out of a dumpster, just like every other night.
The rich work for their money? HA! Like Madoff worked really hard.
I wish I could pay my fair share of taxes. I really do, because that would mean I had an income to pay taxes on.
Instead, the past few years my income was so low, I qualified for chid tax credit and the government paid me. I got a tax refund that was bigger than my total tax withholdings. And if I hadn't received unearned income from my meager investments, I would have qualified for thousands more.
And that included the year I worked as a public school teacher. Yes, they pay teachers at near the poverty level.
I have been excluded from my old career, which used to pay a six figure income. I was excluded by the wealthy, who do whatever they do that has nothing to do with work, I can tell you that.
So as far as I'm concerned, **** the wealthy and milk them for every dime.
But we're already doing that. So it's a moot question.
They deserve whatever happens to them.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- rdappaLv 41 decade ago
The best answer I have come up with for this question is what I call the Robin Hood Principle.
Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? This is correct, only under the deletion of what Robin Hood himself took. You see, the ability to take from the rich and give to the poor has a price too. Robin Hood took from the rich, collected his portion and distributed it to the poor.
I read once, that "redistribution" of current welfare programs cost $1.50 to redistribute $1.00! A third of the money gets lost in the exchange of hands.
I always like to say that: Charitable programs are what the rich create when they are fed up with the government blowing their money.
I also know that it's illegal to buy votes, but I think they found a way, it's called welfare programs. Just like Robin Hood, the government creates a following by handing out freebies. The plain and simple fact, is that it costs money to "redistribute" money.
My suggestion is already in place. The free-market is a natural redistribution of money! If you create something that I need/ want, then I will naturally redistribute my money to you, so that I can have what you created. This is the only cost efficient way of redistribution.
- 1 decade ago
the obvious answer is....
the reason is quite simple:
if a bunch of college students took the same test, and the students who made 90 percent and above on the test had to give up their points so everyone who did 70 percent or worse could have an 80 percent, what would happen to the incentive of those who got a 90 and above? would they work hard on the next exam studying knowing they will lose their reward? and how about those who did less than 80 percent on the exam?
will they work less hard, since they are guaranteed an 80 percent on the next exam anyway?
pure and simple - taxes on sucessful people discourage people from becoming successful and encourage the poor to mooch off the government yet again. ultimately, this sort of federal intervention is fatal to the demeanor of hardworking americans.
health care for the poor should be a grassroots movement, NOT A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY! besides, it gives the federal government more power, and I oppose that on democratic grounds, unlike the majority of this country.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, by all means NO. If that were the case, why work as someone else will pay your way. You take away all incentive from the individual to better himself through self responsibility and initiative. It also punishes the wealthy for working hard and being smart. You see, Robin Hood was the first great handicapper general. He meant well like all socialists, but the road to hell is paved with people with good intentions.Source(s): M.A. Economics 1968
- megLv 71 decade ago
The poor already have government provided health care. It is called Medicaid. The people who need help are mostly those with heath problem so they either can not get insurance or the premiums are higher than most people could afford. Only earned income is taxed to support medicare, so I would tax unearned income to pay for them because I do think the should get care.
- LALALv 51 decade ago
Umm.. I think its not fair at all to take more money from the wealthy because thats why RICH people actually work and Have gone to school ect.. SO i dont think its fair at all.. I think the solution is the the MAchine make more MOney I mean seriously is just paper!!!!!
- 1 decade ago
I think the rich should be independently responsible of charities, but the government shouldn`t take money from people to give to others