Redistribution of Wealth - To The Rich

I'm all for this, because some people consider me rich and I would love to be richer.

If you don't like how much $ someone makes, get off your ass and make similar sacrifices. If your unwilling to make the personal sacrifices then don't bitch.

jf1acai wrote:
[sarcasm]You have it all wrong. People should all be employed by the government, people with money should give it to the government, then we have utopia![/sarcasm]



jf....no one ever suggested any of that, so why bring it up, sarcastic or not.

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anti-colonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

As he put it, “We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

If Obama shares his father's anti-colonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anti-colonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and- even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.

Source

This article is the subject of <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7238 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7238<!-- l -->

I read the first article from SC's first post (haven't had a chance yet to read the 2nd) and was pretty disappointed in it. IMO the author skewed the way he presented data in order to make his own political points.

Here are a few examples:

He laments that from 1990 to 2005 and after adjusting for inflation "production workers’ pay is up only over 15 years 4.3 percent". Well, after you adjust for inflation, how much should income go up? Shouldn't it generally stay close to the same, unless the cost of living exceeds inflation? But the author doesn't go into that. Then he complains that in comparison CEO's pay is up 282%. But he apparently does not adjust for inflation in this case. So he's comparing apples to oranges to make a political point.

He quotes "children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent". Seems to me it's normal that you'd have a 50/50 chance of making more or less than your parents. And even in a "perfect world" where everyone makes the same, only 5% of people can be in the top 5% of income (duh). You can never have 10% in the top 5%. So while 1.8% is low, he makes it sound even lower by limiting his example to the top 5%.

He talks about how median income went up under Clinton and implies it was due to the Clinton tax increases. No, it was due to the strong economy. Was the strong economy due to the Clinton tax increases? I don't think so, but I guess he does although he offers no arguement about it, nor does he explain why tax cuts would hurt median income. And how did we get into the year 2000 recession when the Clinton tax increases were still in effect?

He argues we need a progressive tax structure. Well, we already have one where the higher your income, the greater a percentage you pay. So I guess he really means he wants to raise the upper tax brackets even more. And he calls for taxing capital gains an even higher rate than work income. I've never heard anyone call for that much. Right now they are at 15%. They were 20% under Clinton and 28% before that. So this guy wants to tax them at over 40%? Doesn't he realise that you take risk when you invest in equities that give capital gains? You risk losing your money. And when you buy equities, you are helping the economy by helping companies have cash to hire more workers. Why would anyone take such a risk if you are going to have much of your risky gain taxed at such a high rate? No, you'd invest in something safer, screw the economy.

And then he goes into how great unions are. I'm not saying they don't have their place, but do even the most liberal here believe "the existence of unions helps everyone" as he states? I've never been in a union, and have never had the desire to be in one. For my first job, my company did have union production workers, but as an enginner I wasn't in one. It was very difficult working with the union, which I won't get into now. I got most all the same benefits they got, without having to pay the dues. The only better benefit they may of had at the time that I could see was increased job security. But that all went out the window because they priced themselves too high to compete. When I first started, most all production was done in the US. Now most of it is done overseas (not just for my former company, but the whole industry), so ulimately those union people with "better" job secuity ended up all losing their jobs.

I do agree with the author that education is the key, or at least one of them. But it seems the more money government pours into education, little if any improvement is seen. I would like to see more programs to help people get a college degree, though. You don't need a degree to succeed, but statistically it makes a huge difference in what your projected lifetime income will be.

Unions can bankrupt us....

In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.

And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426