Chronicles in socialist success stories: Poll: most voters say they're open to a political revolution to redistribute wealth

[AthenaAwakened]

you mean like corporate tax avoidance, wage theft, and negative externalities.

I hear ya.

And what is wage theft?

Wage theft in the United States, is the illegal withholding of wages or the denial of benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. Wage theft can be conducted through various means such as: failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, employee misclassification, illegal deductions in pay, working off the clock, or not being paid at all.

 Wage theft, particularly from low wage legal or illegal immigrant workers, is common in the United States, according to some studies.[1][2] The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2014 that survey evidence suggests wage theft costs US workers billions of dollars a year.[3] The rights violated by wage theft have been guaranteed to workers in the United States in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

I'm also curious.

I doubt that since you couldn't even be bothered to look up a term with the aid of google but go on.

Do you hold contempt for anyone that hides from taxes they should pay?

Contempt is not a word i would use, but I am not happy about corporations or individuals who don't pay taxes that they are legally obligated to pay and financially able to pay. Are you in favor of people not paying taxes they should pay? The taxes they should pay are ones they are legally obligated to pay.

Does Bernie and Hillary run their taxes with and without deductions and then choose the higher one to pay?

What does that have to do with the taxes they SHOULD pay? Are they legally obligated to pay the hire rate? If not, then not.

Does either one give extra to the government on their tax return?

Who said they should? You either have not thought this through or you are a lousy writer with atrocious word choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have the real opportunities to legally hide your taxes in they way they can? Do you have a large enough income to have a residence for tax purposes?

According to the below, more than 1,625,000 Americans cheated on their taxes last year:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/how-many-people-cheat-on-taxes/

My guess is that most didn't declare all their income that they were paid.

Yeah, how honest about tip reporting is the average tipped worker? We know multiple people here that got in hot water with the IRS when they cracked down on the rampant tip abuse in the casinos.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's frightening how many people appear to view it that way. We've transitioned from the idea that the government serves the people, to the notion that people are mere slaves to the government.

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

 

[bilby]

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

Really? How fair a number? Do you have their names?

Or is this just pure fantasy on your part?

As taxes in the US would need to rise significantly just to reach the level of funding your government, you have a lot of lobbying for higher taxes to go through before anyone could get close to taking money above and beyond that level.

 

[lpetrich]

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013 "Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary."

The economic elite has been exempting itself from taxes, while not delivering on what they claim that it will do. They have not been creating lots of well-paying jobs and giving out lots of raises and bonuses.

As to why Warren Buffett won't pay more in taxes, there is a certain Tragedy-of-the-Commons problem. If one is responsible and pays lots of taxes, then one lets irresponsible people enrich themselves and gain more political clout in the process. Warren Buffett is not likely to want the Kochs and the Waltons and Sheldon Adelson to take over political discourse, so being responsible would be a politically suicidal sacrifice.

 

[Bomb#20]

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013 "Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate than his secretary."

It appears from the link that he's counting Social Security tax when he makes that calculation. The bulk of that isn't a real tax; it's a purchase of an annuity. His secretary will get her money back with interest when she retires.

(To compare apples to apples we'd need life expectancy tables, data on Buffett and his secretary's income and their taxes, and an actuary to figure out fair market value for an annuity with the payout structure of Social Security. It's undoubtedly going to vary a lot from person to person; the only overall figure I've seen was that the average person's SS tax is 15% real tax and 85% savings for his own retirement.)

 

[Axulus]

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10904988/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-poll

Fifty-four percent of respondents to our online poll — which reached a sample of 1,884 registered voters nationally from Friday, January 29, through Sunday, January 31, 2016 — agreed that a "political revolution might be necessary to redistribute money from the wealthiest Americans to the middle class." Just 30 percent said they disagreed. (Morning Consult Intelligence members can head to their site to view the poll's full toplines and crosstabs.)

Liberals and liberal-leaning demographics were most likely to agree with the statement. But majorities of independents, white voters, evangelicals, and even Tea Party supporters in our sample agreed too — showing that redistribution may no longer be a dirty word in American politics.

So how close to November should I start stockpiling toilet paper and powdered milk?

How does "revolution might be necessary to redistribute wealth" = "open to that revolution"? Saying that massive wealth redistribution "might" require a political revolution does not mean one supports said revolution or massive wealth redistribution. One is a statement of perceived fact about the world, the other is a value judgment on whether that is a desirable outcome. Even I would agree with that statement - that might be the only way to accomplish massive wealth redistribution, but the outcome would eventually end up full of human misery and suffering and would be a terrible fate to avoid at all costs.

It's kind of like asking whether people agree with the statement that "exterminating all of humanity might require a nuclear war". Agreeing with that statement doesn't mean one is open to a nuclear war or wants to exterminate all of humanity.

 

[laughing dog]

How does "revolution might be necessary to redistribute wealth" = "open to that revolution"? Saying that massive wealth redistribution "might" require a political revolution does not mean one supports said revolution or massive wealth redistribution. One is a statement of perceived fact about the world, the other is a value judgment on whether that is a desirable outcome. Even I would agree with that statement - that might be the only way to accomplish massive wealth redistribution, but the outcome would eventually end up full of human misery and suffering and would be a terrible fate to avoid at all costs.

Wouldn't that depend on what one views as "massive wealth redistribution"? There are people who think that the redistribution that occurs today is "massive" and should be reversed. Would a redistribution that insures a minimum income to every household that is sufficient to stay well necessarily be "massive enough" to cause a terrible fate to avoid at all costs?

 

[dismal]

Is it just my imagination or are most of the people slavering over revolution in this thread the same people who can be counted on to point out the idea of a revolution is silly when gun rights come up in other threads?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's silly bilby that you say it's not theft, when the title is a revolution to redistribute wealth? It's not paying for services but rather paying for money to be taken from one group to pay another group.

 

[ImGod]

Is it just my imagination or are most of the people slavering over revolution in this thread the same people who can be counted on to point out the idea of a revolution is silly when gun rights come up in other threads?

I seriously doubt it would ever happen when 40-50% of the population can't be bothered to vote. A "most voters believe" revolution will take more commitment than "I agree, someone else should do something about that".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is it just my imagination or are most of the people slavering over revolution in this thread the same people who can be counted on to point out the idea of a revolution is silly when gun rights come up in other threads?

I vote it's your imagination.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is it just my imagination or are most of the people slavering over revolution in this thread the same people who can be counted on to point out the idea of a revolution is silly when gun rights come up in other threads?

I seriously doubt it would ever happen when 40-50% of the population can't be bothered to vote. A "most voters believe" revolution will take more commitment than "I agree, someone else should do something about that".

The Depression had every fourth family without a breadwinner. That swept FDR into office. When people get desperate things change. If the rich wish to retain their wealth, they'd better be smart about it.

I'd say that presently Joe American is spoiled stupid.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

Then the wall came down and the gloves came off.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

And Kennedy came in and lowered marginal rates in response to 2 economic recessions in the 50s.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

And Kennedy came in and lowered marginal rates in response to 2 economic recessions in the 50s.

To a top bracket of 65%. So you support the Kennedy move to 65%? Good for you! I think the top bracket should be 65% too. See? We agree. Hear that Folks?! COA and I agree taxes should have a top bracket of 65%!

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

And Kennedy came in and lowered marginal rates in response to 2 economic recessions in the 50s.

To a top bracket of 65%. So you support the Kennedy move to 65%? Good for you! I think the top bracket should be 65% too. See? We agree. Hear that Folks?! COA and I agree taxes should have a top bracket of 65%!

Didn't say that.

 

[Bomb#20]

It doesn't seem Orwellian to me, but then I think redistribution means

noun
1. a distribution performed again or anew.
2. Economics. the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.​

Sure looks Orwellian to me.

Note that those are two completely different definitions. That's a red flag that people who promoted the second usage probably intended their listeners to assume the two definitions are related and unconsciously take it for granted that a practice which satisfies the second definition also satisfies the first definition. The whole point of calling it "redistribution" was to subtly suggest that the inequality they were proposing to alter resulted from the performance of a distribution -- that there was a preexisting supply of available income, and somebody distributed that available income among the people.

dis·trib·ute
verb
1. give shares of (something); deal out.​

That's not a historically accurate description of how income differences arose. Economics is not a zero-sum game. People create wealth. Some people create more than others. Labeling taking from the rich and giving to the poor "redistribution" encourages zero-sum thinking. That's deliberate. The purpose is to insinuate that the wealth of the wealthy is unearned and it's unfair for them to get to keep it, without having to undertake the burdensome task of proving it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's frightening how many people appear to view taxes as theft.

Taxes are not theft but a fair number on the left would like to use them as a means of stealing from the rich rather than simply funding government.

And the difference between stealing and funding is what?

Keep in mind that under Eisenhower we had two things, a 91% tax bracket and NO SHORTAGE OF RICH PEOPLE!

And Kennedy came in and lowered marginal rates in response to 2 economic recessions in the 50s.

To a top bracket of 65%. So you support the Kennedy move to 65%? Good for you! I think the top bracket should be 65% too. See? We agree. Hear that Folks?! COA and I agree taxes should have a top bracket of 65%!

Didn't say that.

And you also didn't stay on topic. If you wonder off topic, you never know where you might end up.