| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| "Redistribution of Wealth" | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 29 2008, 08:02 PM (842 Views) | |
| +Reaver | Oct 29 2008, 08:02 PM Post #1 |
Troll
|
I've heard and seen a lot of bullshit regarding the principle "redistribution of wealth", especially as an operating argument against Barack Obama. Clearly we don't want a socialist running our government and spreading our money to the middle class, that's communism and almost as unpatriotic as the damn terrorists! It's a despicable notion that we should have a president giving the lazy, uninspired masses money. They should have to work for it and earn it: that's the American way! Why don't we listen to John McCain's economic policy? Let's listen to our brilliant leader's say about the economy. A modest man, claiming "the economy is not my strong suit", McCain has the American answers to taxes, especially in this period of economic hardship. For example: in a speech given in Pennsylvania John McCain provided a powerful solution addressing all aspects of America's tax woes Source:
Helping the 1.4% poorest people in America (Source)? McCain knows what the deal is. Helping businesses free themselves of the shackles of the inane taxes of the Democratic pary, McCain lowers the tax burden of the wealthiest American parties with a little help from our government! That's a man we can rely on to protect the American way of taxation: we can't allow people, after all, to resdistribute wealth. The government has to give money to corporations originally given to the government by the middle classes so that we can continue living the American way of life; we can't punish businesses for being successful. Look at railroads: they didn't succeed in our society because the government gave them grants of land and money to fund their construction and operation, they worked at building the American dream with nothing more than a hard work ethic and a twinkle in their eye. How American! Just look at this chart regarding tax cuts:  Who can support someone who wants to redistribute wealth to such un-American extremes? WHat kind of damned socialist raises the taxes of people making 602K by twelve dollars? Outrageous, almost communist in the most Russian sense of the word! How can we support someone who wants to give so much wealth from the top earners in America and give it to people working the hardest jobs doing manual labor, what is this a society where we have to help out every sucker with his own sob story and a twinkle in his eye? This is America, we don't punish success and make people live with only 487,026$ if they make 603K! Isn't it obvious who redistributes wealth here? We can't allow socialist policy to overrun our government until we become the next Russia! We have to prevent the distribution of wealth and protect our American lifestyle! Money needs to be given to the rich; it's unfair to redistribute wealth or for the government to give money to people in society. That isn't how capitalism works, people need to earn their money and if they don't want to work they sure as hell won't eat or live a comfortable lifestyle. John McCain wants to protect the fundamental American way of life! Edited by Reaver, Oct 29 2008, 09:24 PM.
|
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
 |
 
|
| Asvel | Oct 29 2008, 08:21 PM Post #2 |
Grandiloquent Panjandrum
|
Taxing the ridiculously-rich is the way to go. We need somewhere to get the money to fix the national deficit, and since most of the country's suffering, it would be ridiculous to siphon our resources from the average person (who, by the way, is usually in a few thousand dollars' debt). That'd just start off a vicious cycle, robbing the not-rich to help the... well, not-rich. Anyone making over $2 million shouldn't complain that their excess is going to help the country. I'm not saying this warrants a shift towards socialism, though. Even though there's less disparity between America's top and bottom 10% than there is in, say, Afghanistan or Zimbabwe, that 10% should be putting more towards supporting their country. I mean, I'd be grateful to any country that offered me the opportunity to get that rich in the first place. |
Asvel: The other forum pedo. fabulous banner by genn
Favorite Artist and Favorite Spriter Winter '09 :D | |
|
|
|
| Captain Bravo | Oct 29 2008, 09:15 PM Post #3 |
You play my nerves like strings
|
Reaver, you win. The thread title typo is almost not worth mentioning XP In seriousness, not only did this thread make me laugh, but you're absolutely right. McCain's been playing to the tune of how "Americans are the best, most innovative" and other nonsense. If we were by any means, we wouldn't be getting outrun abroad from so many different directions. It's good you put the numbers there, too. |
|
What happens if I can't check my MySpace when we get there? Formerly Levin, Glen, Gale, Sailor Neptune, Erk (At the old FEFF)  I'm reviving my forum Brand of Flame. If you're interested in helping out, or just stopping by Here is the link. | |
|
|
|
| cool story bro | Oct 29 2008, 09:42 PM Post #4 |
|
Socialism as the whole system is bad. Capitalism with elements of socialism in it is good. You need some regulations and whatnot to keep things running smoothly. This is how I see things, in the broadest sense at least. |
| A NEW WORLD ORDER | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Oct 29 2008, 10:16 PM Post #5 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Hey Reaver, did you know that Business and Corperations, in practice, don't pay taxes? |
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Oct 30 2008, 05:38 AM Post #6 |
|
Troll
|
And that's the best part of the system. We can't expect these behemoths to pay taxes, they're far too successful for us to meddle with how they spend their money. If they don't pay taxes because they find corporate loopholes and have offshore tax havens, that's merely the American practice of overcoming adversity to accomplish one's goals. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Oct 30 2008, 06:18 PM Post #7 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Nah, its because any taxes placed on business gets passed on to the consumer via prices. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Oct 30 2008, 06:22 PM Post #8 |
|
Troll
|
That makes one way corporations dodge paying taxes without resorting to loopholes. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Oct 30 2008, 07:24 PM Post #9 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Its just practical. If the Government takes more money from a business, they are going to want to make up that money somewhere, and they make it up via higher prices. Thats all taxing corperations would do. Make normal people pay more for shit. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Oct 30 2008, 07:59 PM Post #10 |
|
Troll
|
I understand your argument, but it seems simplistic. If that's the case, then other complications come into play. If companies want to compete in our market, one of the things they have to inevitably do is offer a competitive price for their good or service. If companies raise prices to deal with tax cuts, then the one company that doesn't consequentially raise prices might benefit and make an even greater profit because they're willing to compete. Taxing businesses does translate into higher prices, but it doesn't necessarily mean that prices will rise exponentially. Also consider how our economy works: bulk. Nike doesn't make billions of dollars every year because they sell shoes in Nebraska or New York exclusively: they play the game globally. Our economy runs on bulk: companies sell products on such a great scale thanks to mass production that they can amass the sort of exorborent wealth they hold today. If this principle holds true, that corporations excell by selling in bulk, then the price increases will logically be minimal at best because of the amount of products you sell. Let's say we take the can industry, for example. About 131 Billion cans are produced every year in the United States Source. For the sake of ease we'll assume one can company exists and they sell every one of their cans. Now we'll make up a figure and say they sell each can for ten cents, resulting in a 13.1 Billion dollar gain from cans. So if we tax them, say, 10% they pay 1.31 Billion in taxes. Let's hike that to 20%. Now they pay 2.62 Billion each year. To make up the loss in profit, the can company needs to (as you said) increase the price of cans. The can company, for the sake of ease, wants to make the same profit, so we can say that the sum of their old profit plus the cost of their taxes divided by the number of cans they sell equals the new cost of a can. (13.1 + 2.62)/131 = x = .12 Two cent increase. So saving the middle class, overall, 1.31 Billion should justify raising the price of a can by two cents. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Oct 30 2008, 09:00 PM Post #11 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
The tax increase would effect smaller business more than the larger ones, I would think. Not every business that would be effected would be as large as Nike, for example. In addition, you can anology itself is rather simplistic. You say that this theoreical can company sells .10 cent cans. And then to make up the profits lost via tax, that would go up to .12 cents. .2 cents more sounds like almost nothing, because it is. 20% more expensive doesn't sound as good. If they were selling some magical cans of amazing for $100, then would they not have to increase prices of their Magic Cans to $120? That doesn't sound very good in my book, having goods have their cost increased by 20%. But regardless, if you put a tax on the businesses, that isn't taxing the rich. That tax is still passed onto the consumer. You can't tax entities like that. If you wanted to make taxes that "wouldn't" be passed onto the rich, it would have to be on the actual individuals who run them. Not that I think that is any fairer. Would you mind explaining what good would come from raising the taxes on the rich, or raising taxes on corperations? Would it be to cover the national debt? Or would it be to spend more on social programs? If the objective is to deal with the debt, why raise taxes when you could cut spending? Edited by Sentenal, Oct 30 2008, 09:00 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Crysta | Oct 30 2008, 10:25 PM Post #12 |
yay for conformity!
|
Out of curiosity, didn't Obama elaborate somewhere that small businesses would be exempt from his taxes? 
|
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen
| |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Oct 30 2008, 11:05 PM Post #13 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
I don't know if he did or not. The idea of not taxing small businesses, and yet taxing bigger ones seems counter productive, though. Small businesses want to become successful and large. And if a small business were to achieve that, it would be akin to punishing the success of the small business with heavier tax burdens.
Edited by Sentenal, Oct 30 2008, 11:06 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Crysta | Oct 31 2008, 12:15 AM Post #14 |
|
yay for conformity!
|
Here it is. Big businesses are big businesses and small businesses are small businesses. It's not really akin. It's kind of how like our post count systems work in the RPG lol, only with money instead of experience. The more powerful you get, the harder it gets, but ultimately you're still better off. That's an extremely simplified example, but I'm not familiar enough with the economy to think of a better example. If you're a rich business owner, obviously you don't like it, but at least you won't be harvesting dirt. Hopefully. I'm not sure how we're going to get out of this hole without taxes somewhere. Government spending can be cut, but it still kind of leaves us in there. It simply makes sure we don't go any deeper. >_>; Edited by Crysta, Oct 31 2008, 12:24 AM.
|
|
~ Crysta, Zombie Queen
| |
|
|
|
| Soja | Oct 31 2008, 12:36 AM Post #15 |
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
|
I think I know a thing or two about this matter. Dear ol' father left us with a shitload of tax debt because he was shirking it. Going over the earnings reports, I almost wanted to cry for how much we pulled in some years only for it to have been squandered somewhere, somehow. Our best year we hauled in half a million dollars in raw income, 1999, I believe. FYI, most small business owners file as individuals. We're required to report all our income, not just the net profit after inventory and expenses. Obama's tax plan pretty much stunts growth, or at least discourages it, because no one wants to give a bigger slice of their pie just for working harder than everyone else. Taxes are a fact of life, at least if we want to have our basic infrastructure needs like roads, waterways, schools and governmental services taken care of. But if you start to punish those who are successful, they'll gladly take their business elsewhere. Enter outsourcing. Obviously, only large corporations and companies can afford to do this. Individuals or small businesses making over the threshold are out of luck. Also, this nice $1 trillion debt that was recently added? That's a debt that is owed to us, the taxpayers. Taxes aren't going to affect that one particular aspect of the government's debt. If businesses grow, more money flows through the system, more tax revenue generated by sales and higher profits enters the system, and everyone in general prospers. The last thing we need is increased taxation on those who give the jobs, because they'll gladly downsize or make cuts to make up for the losses. Edited by Soja, Oct 31 2008, 12:38 AM.
|
Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
1:30 AM Nov 25
