Should Everyone Be Entitled To A Piece Of The Wealth Pie?

And we know how liberals cannot stand to let a crisis, even one they've created, go to waste.

 

Another BS poll. Should people who refuse to work and better themselves get a piece? Of course not. Let them starve. Should people trying to work and better themselves be screwed through lopsided big business rule and forever devaluing labor through fiat currency? Also of course not. Should our only choices be market socialism or crony capitalism, basically adding up to the same thing where workers are screwed and the elite make out like bandits? Of course not. Is EVERYTHING that makes up modern America, Earth and Humanity, a huge bag of lies? You bet your ass.

 

Looks like MediaMatters, DailyKos, ThinkProgress, and HuffPo conspired to write the threads poll questions.

 

I actually meant to say "the rich" not "the right". When you type quickly it's very easy to make mistakes.

 

BTW It looks to me like most people agree that the rich should be taxed more. It's called "wealth distribution" which gives everyone a fair chance at living a good life. Obviously the right believes that most of our wealth should be in the hands of very few. The less money circulating around the economy, the less off the 99% will be.

 

Before the wealth can be distributed it must be created, earned then confiscated. Sick

 

Yes. We should earn the wealth and send it all to countries like China. I know. It makes me want to vomit all over myself. But the Republicans obviously believe in it.

 

If Chinese people create and earn wealth good for them. I think we in America should stay focused on what we can do to facilitate American wealth creation.

 

who is "we" that "we" should send it to china ?
Are republicans earning wealth and sending it to the chinese ?

I didn't realize you were a xenophobic isolationist.

 

Obviously so does the president and democrats in congress who have continued to allow trillions of dollars to go to the wealthiest guys in the land, Morgan and Goldman.

 

I have a different idea of what a fair tax is than you probably do.

 

Because if you're in the 1%, you've most likely inherited your money, run a shipment of cocaine through Montreal, been an inside trader all your adult life, or you are a CEO who has made a fortune off government contracts. Or you have been a 'historian' for Freddie Mac. You've most likely never, ever, turned a shovel.

 

Everyone should be entitled to a SHOT AT a piece of the wealth pie. How you go about doing it, and how well you apply yourself is up to you.

 

Indeed. And everyone should be entitled to a fair opportunity to succeed, according to their own efforts, if they are prepared to apply themselves.

 

OK what percentage of taxes is the top 1%'s fair share? How about the top 10%. The bottom 50%?

 

Problem is, Republicans want to put all the pheasants in one pen and release them the morning of the 'big hunt'. The dead pheasants usually end up in a dumpster.

 

If you work enough to earn the piece of the pie then yes.
To be given to you for being lazy and staying at home, no.

 

Prove it......

 

A truly fair tax is not fair because of the amount you pay. It's fair because of the amount of burden it puts on your household. Everyone should pay an equal burden.

A thousand dollar tax can be a huge burden to some one making 12,000 a year. But almost nothing to someone making a million dollars a year.

Everyone should feel the same weight from taxes.

 

Could you provide a source of your information?

I believe everyone has a chance , most just do not take the chances .

 

What astonishes me as I read through this thread is the segue from the concept of a social safety net to wealth distribution. It seems some people presume they are synonymous.

They are, in fact, two divergent concepts and at the risk of having some 'progressives' set fire to their hair, one is a proven concept that is beneficial socially and economically. One is an extension of centrist liberal thinking that has improved lives, benefited the economy and, when carefully applied, is sustainable. It has also been shown to help drive economic growth. It is, at its heart, socialism.

The other, wealth distribution, has been a proven failure in every application in history, including the Soviet Union, the Eastern Block and all "communist" applications. It has been shown conclusively to stall the economy, one of the best examples being soviet controlled Poland in the early 1980's.

Simply re-branding a failed concept will not change the result. Without incentive humans languish, as exampled now with the Occupy Bowell Movement, where the majority of it's members tend to be college educated, sometimes graduated who did not heed advice and pursue something different than a useless arts degree. They, and those who chose not to pursue a post secondary education at all now find themselves unemployable and want the rich to bail them out.

Question: Would the United States have the unemployment and illegal immigration problems it has if American born people were will to work at the jobs now held by illegals at the rate illegals are paid?

Taxing the rich has never resolved debt and deficit issues; the result has always been the opposite with a general side effect of the rich redistributing their own wealth to reduce taxes.

If I am in the 1%, assume I would have a hefty retirement portfolio, why would I work for 10% of what people in other countries earn? If I am a football player making $15 million a year, why would I want to risk permanent injury for more than one or two years, enough to build a retirement portfolio?

(note: the above are examples and may or may not be in the "1%)

 

Everyone has a chance, perhaps, but the chance enjoyed by those who come from a wealthy background is considerably higher than the chance of those born into poverty. Everyone has a chance, but everyone does not currently have anything like a fair or even chance to succeed by their own efforts - some have a much higher chance than others (and through no fault of their own).

 

Which is why we should eliminate completely the inheritance tax.

 

They are indeed different, although I would argue that a social safety net is a matter of liberal 'social justice', not actually 'socialism' - it's what a civilised sociaty should do in looking after those who are unable to look after themselves. As a modern liberal, I certainly fully support a social safety net, along with other measures of social justice to ensure a fair society and a fair chance for those in poverty to be able to escape it, but I certainly do not support any form of redistribution of wealth, or simply giving lots of money to people who can't be bothered to work (or work hard) on the grounds that other people are richer than them, so should have their money taken away from them. The rich should contribute to society through tax, but should not actually be penalised for being rich and have their money simply taken off them and given to people who haven't earned any for themselves.

Of course, as I have said, the other factor involved is the social justice of fair and equal opportunity - that needs to be addressed before the poorest in society can ever be dismissed as simply being 'lazy'. It isn't that simply, and the inequalities of opportunity already exist, so have to be dealt with before the overall situation can change.

 

I agree, the inheritance tax needs to go.