Money for the Poor?! Blasphemous!

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

Compared to giving more to the rich and taking more from the poor?

Yes, it's pretty damn fair.

 

[Zeonix]

It isn't about giving to the rich, though. It's about whether we should take what's rightfully theirs and give it to everyone else.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

fair or not, it will benefit both parties in the long run, by placing higher taxes on those of larger incomes, some of which DIDN'T work from the ground up, or are in professions where as you say, luck plays a huge factor, and "giving" it to those on lower incomes in the forms of better healthcare/schooling/whatever. means that there's a lower financial burden on the low income families, which will free up more disposable income, and help stimulate the economy better.

at the end of the day, we on low incomes will always view this as fair, and those on high incomes will view it as unfair. but when the executive director of Tesco, last year earned a £5m bonus, because the company did awesome. that's on top of his £3m per year salary, that means he took home £8m in a single year.

a person earning £32,000 per year, wouldn't earn that amount of money in their entire LIFE. and what does the director of tesco do to earn his money? nothing, he was born into the position. his board do more than he does for the company, and even they don't do MUCH.

if you have enough money that you can comfortably feed not only your own family, but the families of an entire city, then you should probably consider giving some of it away anyway. the company has its own treasury for "rainy days".

 

[Grega]

I say burn all the cash and invent robots all the work instead of us ^^

As for the topic. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor raises the poor peoples standard to a level where they can actually survive. But since humans will be humans that makes them go well ill get it from the state anyhow so why bother working in the first place. That's one of the major flaws in communism. That and people being greedy bastards so the leaders take as much as they can for themselves.

As for the other way round. Capitalism is the total opposite. Creating a big riff between rich and poor it literally forces people to work on improving their own social standard. That leads to new achievements in technology and an actual will to improve. Of course this system also has a big flaw. The leading society of capitalism will grab a lot for themselves (legally and illegally) and then make the laws to protect themselves saying "screw you" to everyone else.

So on paper both systems are great. But due to human nature capitalism is the one that makes the most advances.

And if you are wondering the connection.

Communism = tax the rich and raise the living standard of the poor.
Capitalism = less taxes and let people take care of themselves.

I personally think there should be a fund for schooling those kids that cant afford it, but the conditions would have to be set and pretty strict in order that it isn't abused.

 

[Zeonix]

fair or not, it will benefit both parties in the long run, by placing higher taxes on those of larger incomes, some of which DIDN'T work from the ground up, or are in professions where as you say, luck plays a huge factor, and "giving" it to those on lower incomes in the forms of better healthcare/schooling/whatever. means that there's a lower financial burden on the low income families, which will free up more disposable income, and help stimulate the economy better.

at the end of the day, we on low incomes will always view this as fair, and those on high incomes will view it as unfair. but when the executive director of Tesco, last year earned a £5m bonus, because the company did awesome. that's on top of his £3m per year salary, that means he took home £8m in a single year.

a person earning £32,000 per year, wouldn't earn that amount of money in their entire LIFE. and what does the director of tesco do to earn his money? nothing, he was born into the position. his board do more than he does for the company, and even they don't do MUCH.

if you have enough money that you can comfortably feed not only your own family, but the families of an entire city, then you should probably consider giving some of it away anyway. the company has its own treasury for "rainy days".

That isnt benefitting both parties. And again, it isn't our money to give away. I'm all for higher taxes, but that's only because I hate the filthy rich.

 

[Skiwan]

People that earn £250,000+ per year don't exactly need to save their pennies. As long as this new tax cut doesn't screw over the middle guy (those who have enough money to get by, but aren't ever able to really splash out any money on anything) then I think its a good idea.

I think improving the quality of life for the less fortunate is a benefit to everyone in the long run. Though I do understand the whole welfare issue, it is a *****. On my street we have 5 council houses, and a woman that lives on benefits and child support is having all her plumbing and electrics completely redone, new windows, new insulation etc, and she doesn't have to pay a thing. But since we own this house, we don't get any of this "upgrade". Yet she sits on her arse day after day and gets this without ever having to lift a finger.

 

[guest]

No-one other than Thomas Jefferson (o/) seems to be asking what is to me the BIG question: Why should the government be allowed to redistribute your money?

I'm all for charity for those trapped in the poverty trap, but charity has an important definition: It is a charitable act by one person or person(s).
Taking money from people through taxes and giving that money to the poor through welfare or disabled allowance, is wrong. That is not charity. That is against someone's will. That is not a charitable act by any person.

Now, collectivists would say this is selfish behaviour- that everyone should be as generous as each other, and use this money well to create equality.
However, if we are to stand by the ideologies America was founded on and represents, we must respect the right of any man rich or poor to say "No, I don't want to give away my money."- and from there the best thing to do is to teach him the better way through your own actions, through example, not to force him to comply to your will.

This might seem a bit "out there", and let's be honest it's WAY out there, but as long as people think the president, or any one person for that matter, is the problem nothing will change. Once people accept that the system is fundamentally broken and corrupt, things can change.
In short, both the idea of taking from the poor and giving to the rich, AND the idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor are wrong.
At least, that's what I believe. Always remember when you're presented with two choices, it's because they don't want you to take the third.

 

[Zeonix]

It isn't about giving to the rich, though. It's about whether we should take what's rightfully theirs and give it to everyone else.

I totally brought up that point.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

this is why robbing from the rich to give to the poor, is fair.

 

[Killface]

I don't agree with what I'm about to say, but let me play devil's advocate.

I'm filthy ****ing rich. I've worked my ass off to make a small company a giant corporation. I am rolling around in more money than I could need. But why should I give a cent to the poor? This is my money, I've worked my ass off for this, so why should I just give it away to people just because they are in a worse situation?

My thoughts exactly... it's about sacrifice. Ive had this conversation with countless people over and over again. It isnt right for one person to go off and sacrifice their time, money, ect to get a good degree and a good paycheck, JUST so the government forces him to give a cut of his hard earned cash to the people who didnt go off and get a good education and sacrifice thier time in college.

That's socialism, and i know most of you are gonna disagree with me and all that crap, but it is NOT right for that to happen.

God that pisses me off....

 

[Zeonix]

My thoughts exactly... it's about sacrifice. Ive had this conversation with countless people over and over again. It isnt right for one person to go off and sacrifice their time, money, ect to get a good degree and a good paycheck, JUST so the government forces him to give a cut of his hard earned cash to the people who didnt go off and get a good education and sacrifice thier time in college.

That's socialism, and i know most of you are gonna disagree with me and all that crap, but it is NOT right for that to happen.

God that pisses me off....

It's perfectly fair when you're a CEO who's screwed over thousands of workers just so you could get a gold-plated yacht that you'll never use.

See, what you're basically arguing against are taxes in general. It's not like Obama is proposing we cut the salaries of the richest 10% who own 80% of the nation's wealth in half. We already have a progressive tax system where the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The top income tax rate is currently 35% for the richest Americans. Obama is raising it back up to 39%. I say back because it was Bush who lowered it under the assumption that all of that extra money was going to trickle back down to us peons, but it never did. You can't have a strong country without a strong foundation, and our foundation is the middle class which I'm sure every single one of us is a part of.

McCain's plan would lower taxes slightly for the middle class, lower taxes dramatically for the upper class, and our deficit would increase as a result of it. We need to get money from somewhere to pay for ****, and getting it from the people who can afford to give up a little more scratch does that.

 

[Kaination]

Still the logic is as follows.

You studied and got an A on a test. A football player didn't have time to study because of the game, and got a C. So, the teacher comes up to you and tells you he or she will be giving part of your A to the football player, so then you both end up with B's. I mean, it's not fair, the football player didn't -have the chance, nor the time- to study, so he should get it.

Now that's unfair. You work hard for your money. You earned it, you should be able to spend it however the **** you want. Burn it? Sure, you worked for it. That's how I view it. If you earn something, then you should be able to do whatever the **** you want with it.

 

[Zeonix]

Still the logic is as follows.

You studied and got an A on a test. A football player didn't have time to study because of the game, and got a C. So, the teacher comes up to you and tells you he or she will be giving part of your A to the football player, so then you both end up with B's. I mean, it's not fair, the football player didn't -have the chance, nor the time- to study, so he should get it.

Now that's unfair. You work hard for your money. You earned it, you should be able to spend it however the **** you want. Burn it? Sure, you worked for it. That's how I view it. If you earn something, then you should be able to do whatever the **** you want with it.

Well, in the spirit of equality (even though taxing people in proportion to their income is pretty damn equal), we should raise everyone's taxes then.

Problem solved.

 

[Brosiris]

Still the logic is as follows.

You studied and got an A on a test. A football player didn't have time to study because of the game, and got a C. So, the teacher comes up to you and tells you he or she will be giving part of your A to the football player, so then you both end up with B's. I mean, it's not fair, the football player didn't -have the chance, nor the time- to study, so he should get it.

Now that's unfair. You work hard for your money. You earned it, you should be able to spend it however the **** you want. Burn it? Sure, you worked for it. That's how I view it. If you earn something, then you should be able to do whatever the **** you want with it.

You're right, the guy who invented sticky notes and became a millionaire in the process worked damn hard for his money.

 

[Zeonix]

You're right, the millionaire who 'invented' sticky notes worked damn hard for his money.

He deserves that money, but he can also afford to pay more in taxes than someone making 30k can. The CEO making 100 times that of the average worker doesn't deserve that much cash.

 

[Kaination]

Well, in the spirit of equality (even though taxing people in proportion to their income is pretty damn equal), we should raise everyone's taxes then.

Problem solved.

but remember, taxing is at a percentage. not a set amount.

so we're not taxing 1,000 from your paycheck. we're taxing whatever it is right now (no idea atm)

so someone who earns less, yes, they'll have little to no luxeries, but that's because they don't earn quite as much.

but someone who gets paid a lot more, that percentage will affect them a little more. That's perfectly fair in my eyes.

now, if you tax the poor, say, 5% and tax the rich for 15%, that's unfair.

 

[Zeonix]

but remember, taxing is at a percentage. not a set amount.

so we're not taxing 1,000 from your paycheck. we're taxing whatever it is right now (no idea atm)

so someone who earns less, yes, they'll have little to no luxeries, but that's because they don't earn quite as much.

but someone who gets paid a lot more, that percentage will affect them a little more. That's perfectly fair in my eyes.

now, if you tax the poor, say, 5% and tax the rich for 15%, that's unfair.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

And then there's all the money that we give away to corporations and friends.

 

[MC]

The thing is that many people don't realize is that the way our tax system works, the wealth is already being spread. And regardless of who's elected president, it will remain that way. Not to mention both Obama and McCain would bring tax breaks to the middle class. The only difference being that Obama would bring more tax breaks to the middle class, less for the rich. While McCain would bring less tax breaks for the middle class, more for the rich.

At least, that's the way I understand it.

 

[Killface]

You're right, the guy who invented sticky notes and became a millionaire in the process worked damn hard for his money.

Well what about the other guys that actually did work hard for their money? They should have their money cut just because some guy invented a piece of paper with glue on the back? Yeah, that guy got off easy... and he's riding the wave pretty well right now. But for the other guys that do sacrifice and work hard.. should they have their wages cut and reimburse the rest of lower class America? I think not.. It's not fair to him.

As for the tax thing... It should be a set amount for everyone. No fluctuations based on your income. Hell.. it all goes to the US government anyways. Not to other people. Keep it how it is i guess. I mean maybe raise or lower the percentage, but keep the same concept.

I got a question though. Lets say we were to tax the rich a bit more than everyone else. What would define someone as being "rich"? $500,000+/year? A million? ect...?

 

[Zeonix]

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm