Skip to comments.How Much Wealth Redistribution Is Enough?
Posted on 12/11/2013 7:37:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Income Gap: As President Obama laments America's growing income inequality, a new government report shows the futility of his calls for ever-more wealth redistribution.
To deflect attention from ObamaCare's failures, the president this month trotted out his income inequality chestnut. "A dangerous and growing inequality," he intoned, "has jeopardized middle-class America's basic bargain."
He argued, "as a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither."
Apparently, nobody bothered to brief the president before he delivered this speech. Fact is, federal transportation spending has climbed 39% in real terms since 1980, and spending on education has more than doubled.
And while Obama claims taxes were "slashed for the wealthiest," the average tax rate among the top 1% was higher in 2010 than in the early 1980s.
Meanwhile, a new Congressional Budget Office report shows that the government is already a massive wealth redistribution machine.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
If one has to ask, one will never comprehend the answer!
What kind of question is this?
Of course taxes are slashed “for the wealthiest.” They are the ones PAYING the taxes. If someone doesn’t pay taxes we can’t really cut taxes for them.
Tax from the rich
Give to the poor
Until there ain’t
No rich no more
Politicians say, “More taxes, will solve everything”..........and the band played on.....
Whatever it takes to DESTROY AMERICA.
That’s the goal!
It’s NEVER been about helping the poor.
It’s about buying their votes to KEEP THEM DEPENDENT AND POOR.
Let them believe the lies, by showing how they hurt the rich...
Their plight won’t change, but they’ll feel better about it.
I’d love to change the World...but I don’t know what it wears.
The “wealth” isn’t being redistributed from the top to the bottom, it’s being redistributed from the middle to the top.
If you have 10 people, 9 of which work.
All 9 that work buy an ice cream cone every day with part of the wealth they have earned.
The 10th is your typical democrat voter and doesn’t work so he doesn’t have any wealth to buy an ice cream cone.
The govt takes part of the wealth of the 9 that do work and give the 10th an ice cream cone.
The wealth didn’t go to the guy that got the “free” ice cream cone, he ate it, it’s gone.
The wealth went to the “rich” guy who sold the ice cream cone.
Since the “rich” guy is one of the 9 that works and had part of his wealth taken to pay for the 10th guy’s ice cream cone, he raises the price of the ice cream cones to cover the loss.
He’s also sold 10 ice cream cones where he only sold 9 before.
8 people are actually paying for 10 ice cream cones.
The low man on the income totem pole no longer has the wealth to buy himself an ice cream cone so he now gets a “free” ice cream cone.
It’s simple “Trickle Up” economics.
The higher you raise taxes on the rich to provide goods and services for the poor, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
It’s like the line in the Ten Years After song, “Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.” And then what?
Inequality, eh? If Joe makes $42,238 a year, and Jane makes $42,239, there is income inequality.
They don’t mean that. They mean they want doctors and CEO’s to make no more than 8 times the minimum wage. They will, however, be happy to let themselves, the liberal elite, lawyers, union leaders and sports figures make as much as they want.