Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Republicans, how do you feel about the systematic distribution of wealth to the rich?

Since Ronald Regan took office, and reduced capital gains taxes, reduced taxes on the rich, took away "great depression" era regulations on banks and corporations, and adopted the policy of trickle down economics, the middle class has shrank, the rich have gotten richer, regular Americans like you and me have worked harder and we have become poorer.

Here are the facts.

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Cours...

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

The facts are not debated, even by the most conservative economists.

1. The Rich have gotten richer.

2. The middle class is shrinking

3. The lower 90% of America is getting poorer.

4. Taxes on the rich have been reduced

5. Government has reduced or lessened restrictions on big corporations.

6. Republicans and their policies have been in charge for MOST of this time, starting with Regan.

Isn't the philosophy of Reagan and the Conservatives that; If we loosened restrictions on big business, reduced taxes on the richest of the rich, they would spend more money, invest more, and employ more people, increasing the quality of life for all Americans?

If that were true, how do you account for the opposite effect on the American population. Sure, the rich have gotten richer and we reduced many great depression era regulations on big business, however, the quality of life for 90% of Americans has gotten much worse. Even conservative economists agree on this. IF trickle down economics works, or Reganomics works, why did the opposite effect happen? Especially when Republicans have been on control most of this time?

Q: So, How do you feel about this trend of wealth distribution to the richest of the rich?

Is this what you want for America?

Is this how Capitalism is supposed to work?

Is this what you believe in?

Is this how you think you will be rich, by making the rich even more rich? If so, how do you explain the last 28 years of everyone getting poorer?

If you blame government? how do you come to terms with the fact that regulations on businesses have LOOSENED in the last 28 years?

Just trying to understand you.

Update:

Sad, Not one Republican answered ANY of my questions. I guess I will have to try again for an intelligent answer later. Thanks everyone for your input.

Update 2:

I don't think you guys understand what is happening to you. You think that if you work hard, that you will one day be rich. That is a complete lie.

If you work harder and harder, you will make someone else richer and richer. That is what capitalism is. You work FOR someone, not for YOURSELF. You get paid a wage. You do not get paid for the wealth you create, you get paid for a wage. So, no matter how hard you work, or how much wealth you make, you will never be rich because the owners will take that extra wealth you generated and call it profit, and put it in their own pockets. That is capitalism.

Please understand, if you work for someone, you do not work for yourself and you will never be rich, no matter how hard you work.

Fact: hard work does not equal being rich!

Update 3:

virgod: I never said re-distribution. Please re-read my question.

26 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Do you really think they will answer this!!!?

  • 1 decade ago

    Your first source is a slide that looks like something my 13yr old could do. I could make a slide that says I'm the King of Hawaii but that doesn't make it true. Your second source is a biased studying trying to PROVE inequality, not study it objectively. If this came from a person looking at the cold hard facts trying to ascertain the correct answer, not when someone tries to prove a preformed opinion, then it would carry more weight. If you're going to say the poor have gotten poorer for 28 years, you have to include Bill Clinton's 8 years in there as well, and you actually have to go back to Carter before Clinton because we were an a HUGE downhill slide when Reagan took over. You may be too young to remember gas prices being frozen and lines for city blocks at the pumps. Carter handed Reagan a bigger mess than anyone, Republican or Democrat, has had to deal with since then. And if the Dem's answer is so good, why is unemployment almost at 10% when Obama GUARANTEED his stimulus would make sure it didn't go above 8%. Why is unemployment among 18-24 year olds 18%? I don't see anyone rich or poor benefiting from the current administration. Bush's deficit is dwarfed by Obama's and China is about to stop buying our debt which will force us to print more money and send us into inflation.

  • 1 decade ago

    The top 5% of American wage earners, those who earn $160 thousand or more per year already pay 60% of Federal Income tax.

    The bottom 50% of wage earners, those earning $30 thousand and less pay almost no tax at all.

    http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

    Even if you took all the money the top 5% have you would still not be able to pay for Obama's spending.

    America also has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Our tax rate has already driven American jobs overseas contributing to our nearly 10% unemployment.

    Socialism is a dead philosophy, after all these years the only thing you have to offer is jealousy and class hatred. Truely pathetic.

  • 1 decade ago

    The rich are pretty special I'd say ... because unlike many, they have earned their keep. It wouldn't be right for the government to take from them to distribute it to those who have done nothing to earn it.

    Edit: And just as an aside note ... if being rich is so bad, then why are so many on welfare? Does the government think they can make a "utopia" where everybody "equally" rich? Me actually thinks the government doesn't want anybody to work their way up, they want everybody down in the gutter where they have kept them since the "New Deal."

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    So I take it we should tax those who consume. Do away with income tax, because the higher % of income earners are not producing wealth?

    So if we tax those that buy things then it would be more equal?

    Could it be that some of the middle class were squeezed out of the middle class and moved upward to those wealthier tax brackets or could it be the democrat play on words that the wealthy make over $400,00 uh 300,00 uh 200,00 uh 150,00 or in the Clinton era $40,000?

  • 1 decade ago

    I find that during a Republican administration more people are working and doing their best to achieve the American dream. I have never been rich, but I know that the best chance I have is under a conservative, not a liberal that is generous, with every ones money but his own. One thing you seem to forget, there are as many or more rich liberals as their are rich republicans.

    I see your "proof' comes from sites that are either far left or out right socialist. How can you start to understand, when you listen to propaganda.

  • virgod
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Les, wow... Your logic is everything BUT logic... So-called "rich" don't need "re-distribution" of anything TO THEM... Incidentally, it is YOUR "president" soTUro, aka hussein obama, who PROMISED exactly that - "re-distribution of wealth" (i.e., taking from those who produce and create and giving to those, who DO NOT)... And everything he did and does up to today - is destruction of America's very foundations. I am an Independent Conservative. I am working from age 13. Everything I have - I EARNED. One of insane neo-libs was arguing that I made money of "other people"... LOL... So what? "Other people" conversely "made money of me"... That's how capitalism works and capitalism made America the most powerful country in the world. I have no probs with it. I also know that we are the most charitable in the world, and I like it to continue as an action, being under MY complete control. Let me decide - who and why I donate to... I am NOT ready, and would NEVER be, to give ONE PENNY - to generations of parasites, created by neo-liberalism, not to mention illegals. To me (and to the Law) - they are CRIMINALS, with or without anchor babies or anchor grown up, with ALL their families and relatives. They made a choice - to violate the LAW of MY country, and NOTHING will change this fact.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Wealth can only be redistributed through taxes and the brute force of the government to back it up.

    A hardworking person can not redistribute their own wealth back to themselves - you're not making any sense.

    Ever watch what happens after someone wins the lottery? - in less than 10 years they are either broke or deeply in debt.

    People are broke because they do not know how to manage their money in the first place - and you want to give them more money to mismanage? That is not the Solution, my friend.

  • 1 decade ago

    How I feel about smart or innovative people succeeding? I'm fine with that. If I exchange wealth for goods or services that I want or need. I'm fine with that. I'm not "poorer" for having given up currency for stuff.

    I can't find it, but there is a section in the Sword and the Stone where Merlin teaches young Arther how businesses work. I think it may help you.

  • Rob
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    1) The rich haven't been getting richer

    2) Trickle down was proven to be unsuccessful. The theory proves to work, but in practice, never acheived. The reason? The poor always spent.

    ....And they still do. Which is why gambling works. If gambling didn't work, than trickle down would prove to be successful in practice, as in theory. But, since gambling is designed to be used by the poor and medium classes, the effects of "the winner(s)" puts the money right back into the system.

    3) Capitalism has worked for decades. It's worked across the board from 1912, lasting through the depression to now. Even in times of recessions, through capitalism, markets are able to untwist themselves without the means of manual strategy to "undo" them.

    4) Ever taken a probability and statistics course in college? Better yet, ever taken a simple accounting course in payable mathematics?

    It's quite simple. The poor man gets 8/ hr. medium class gets 10/ hr and rich man gets 12/ hr. The tax rate is 22%. Which person pays the most? And why?

    First let me explain that all three of these men also have 3 kids. The poor man can claim 4 altogether, but also receive write offs for all three, including his wife---> Because he falls under the annual wage bracket

    The Medium class man also has 3 kids, and since he falls in the middle, he also gets to claim all 3 kids, however, he may or may not be able to claim his wife, due to the percentage of his take home pay AND the percentage the employer tends to randomly choose, to add into the annual wage bracket. (This is important because the employer will choose percentages based off the poor man to rich man difference ratios of this industry. And the industry is not set by anyone other than the government--- or the trades bureau.) We'll equal it out, but also give it fair balance and tax it as they usually go with the rich man tax brackets at another 5%. But, for fair ratios, we'll pull it down to 3%.

    However, since most taxes are lower than of the medium to higher class bracket of 8%, they too will get to only write off 2 dependents per household.

    The Rich man is only allowed to claim himself, his wife, and two other dependents. His percentage of income is also endowed by a 5% increase upon the original 22%, and he must be found obligated to pay a 10% fiscal year tax per dependent based on every 25% net income.

    This is all configured from the 5% tax increase on the rich or those who gross of more than $275,000.00 a year.

    For this short version, we'll say all men work no more or less than 40 hours per week, 11 months a year.

    Lets do the math: First figure: Tax percentage Second figure: Net income:

    Poor Man: 22% - Write offs = $23,063.04 yearly net income

    Medium Man: 22% - (2) Write offs + 3% = $21,775.35 yr. net income

    Rich Man: 4 dependents + oneself = 5 claims

    22% + 5% gross income tax on 5 claimed (no write offs for >$275,000.00 annual income bracket) at 10%/ 25% net income + 5% = $20,397.76

    ....Below, the first quotes are the gross annual incomes (before taxes) of each man before all adjusted claims and federal, SS, and Medicare taxes. This is also based on a 40 hour work week for 11 months. The second quotes are approximate figures after all claims adjustments and annual tax returns for each man of 3 kids, 1 wife, and oneself.

    They are as follows:

    Poor Man: $14,080.00 ---------------------> $8,983.04

    Medium Man: $17,600.00 -----------------> $4,175.35

    Rich Man: $21,120.00 ----------------------> $ -722.24

    Which one of these classes received the most beneficial return?

    Now look at the Rich man.... He owed 722.24. How and why?

    See how the Medium class has to work harder to get no where?

    This is a simple analogy of how our system currently operates. The rich are taxed more than everyone else. And the income brackets are set in place to allow more taxes to be taken out for the more income brought in. With this being said, the system is designed for the poorest of men, to remain poor by their constant contribution to the economy via spending.

    What happens when you give $1,000.00 to a poor man? He'll spend it.

    And you give it to the medium class? They'll throw it in the bank.

    What happens when you give $1,000.00 to a rich man? He'll invest it and risk losing it, or doubling it.

    ...The rich getting richer is the saddest, most undeveloped, misinformed statement and myth out there. The rich get poorer due to the systems regulations and bracketry. The medium class stays the medium class because the system is designed for them to work harder to get anywhere, while the poor stay poor, allowing them to have the access to the most, to benefit the economy.

    --Rob USMC

  • 1 decade ago

    When I look at what we consider poverty, I consider how my father grew up in Appalachia . If he failed in his daily hunting trip, is eleven brothers and sisters did without meat that day,and lived off the stored food they grew or gathered. everyone worked from dawn to dusk except for time in school,(my father dropped out in 8th grade to help support the family)

    My grandfather worked himself into an early grave to raise his children.

    They never ask for a government handout,never expected someone else to give them anything. they worked hard,provided a better life for their children that they had and did it without government help. When you expect me to believe the people living in govt. subsidized housing with tv and cell phones are living in poverty...I don't buy it.

    Capitalism allowed my father to leave Appalachia, work hard,get a good job and raise a family better off than his, and now we are financially better off than my parents. this is the American dream, it works if you work and make good decisions. you succeed or fail on your own merits. This is how I want things to work and don't begrudge anyone what they earn honestly. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the great American experiment

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.