You do realize that we already have a system of redistributing wealth in this country don't you? We've been funneling money "up" out of the middle class and into the upper class for 30+ years. All you have to do is look at the ratio of executive compensation to their average worker in the 1970s and what it's like now to get a sense that we've done nothing but erode the middle class, and consider the fact that wages have been stagnant for nearly as long and the ranks of the lower class have been expanded ... but hey if you want to live in the Gilded Age part deux, more power to you. As for the cascading tax system, that's really misleading, since it's mainly been built that way as a means of compensating for the fact that we have so many goddamn loopholes in our tax code that allows the richest amongst us to dodge their fair share -- we've talked about this before; I'm all for a flat tax with loopholes closed.
Executive compensation means nothing. At the top, the job is more performance based and is high stress. More so than not, top executives have to go through hundreds of loops, extreme competition and working their way up to the top to reach the pinnacle. The average worker is totally replaceable. Their jobs have little or no realized impact other than to "keep the machine" oiled.
In the 1970s, the workers made 95% of the wages in a company and the executives 5%. Today, the workers make 95% of the wages in a company and the executives 5%. The companies are just bigger.
Eric, I respect your opinion on the economic issues, and I wouldn't attempt to change your viewpoint. There's a lot to be said for capitalism. It works. Socialism belongs in a fairytale. That said, I'd like to engage you in a discussion nontheless. It seems as though you are viewing the economic issues as falling either under the "capitalist" umbrella or the "socialist" umbrella. I think you are misclassifying Obama's positions. There is a "grey", or "middle" area that would consist of capitalist principles supported by social programs to help people rise when they need assistance. No one is suggesting socialism. No one is suggesting that we nationalize the banks or anyth--ok, forget that one. Look, we all recognize that it is a slippery slope. At what point does social programs reach a critical mass and become full-blown socialism? It is obviously a delicate balance, and reasonable minds may differ as to where that balance falls. But I believe that it is a moral issue for the government to step in and give people the tools to succeed, which is different from eliminating incentive to achieve. I also believe in the "bottom-up" economic effect. That is, if the middle and lower classes have more money, they will buy more staples, and some minor luxuries, which in turn will grow our economy, because their spending will trickle up to that small and medium-sized business. I believe--and this is just me--that perhaps businesses will be paying higher taxes--but that is because they will be making more profit than if the tax breaks had not been given to the lower and middle class. Tax breaks to the wealthy really do not have as much of an effect at growing the economy, because the money is not used to buy basic goods; it is more likely to be used to buy pure luxury items like artwork. In short, it is good for the economy for more people to have spending money when they previously didn't have any. Regardless, you have to consider that not everyone is driven by the opportunity to make more money. For some people, the important thing is psychic benefits of helping people; for others it is discovering new ideas or ways to do things for efficiently. For others, there is a balance between making money and spending time with their families. For some people, the important thing is recognition. So your view that there will no longer be any "incentive" to work hard is off base, in that it assumes that everyone is solely driven by the goal to make money. That's just not true at all. Many people take lower-paying jobs to receive one of these other benefits. These incentives will always exist in our system. The government scientist who works hard because he is driven by wanting to help someone, will still be able to achieve his goals. And, as stated above, while the small businessman may pay a little more tax--not much more, because the higher rates would only apply to the dollars he earns over $250,000 in Obama's plan, not the whole caboodle--he would be making more because there will be more customers. I believe, as many do, that a national, last-resort health care system is the moral thing to do, and will have the effect of reducing costs to taxpayers and growing the economy, by allowing more people to be productive workers. Everything is connected in some way; you have to look at issues holistically. Again, I respect your viewpoint that the market should decide winners and losers, and that such a system is the most effecient and effective way to grow the economy. However, please recognize that the addition of some social programs will NOT turn the US system of government into "socialism." There is a big divide.
I find the recent moves unconscionable. 1. First the "stimulus package", which was completely ridiculous in the first place IMO. 2. Bailouts of Fannie/Freddie 3. Bailouts of AIG 4. Bailout program for greedy wall street executives, irresponsible borrowers, and failing banks Next: 5. Proposed additional stimulus package 6. Additional energy windfall profits tax stimulus package 7. Government renegotiating home loans that were agreed upon 8. Government paying for the principle on home loans for private individuals. I'm sorry, this far exceeds your standard of "giving people the tools to succeed". And this is just the BEGINNING of this all. IMO, the systems that were defective need to fail if this is going to be true capitalism.
This is a redistribution of wealth. Again, it punishes individuals for success, which I find contrary to my personal vision for America. Making money is not the end-all, do-all. However, I feel that it is just unfair that as your income increases, you get to take a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of that money home.
well, don't forget that you stop paying the social security component of FICA at some point around $100,000. But also, we have to pay for our infrastructure in order for our economy to succeed. Not just bridges, roads, and dams, but obviously those things are important and expensive. There is also the police force, the court system, and government agencies such as the FTC and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy and the large corporations use these services a disproportionate amount. Much of our court system is used by settling contractual and other business-related disputes. Our patent and trademark office helps protect intellectual property, and violations are investigated by DOJ's anti-trust division. These services need funds to operate, so yes, I have no issue with the wealthy paying a little more money as a result. And again, I fail to see how people are being "punished" for success. By increasing the number of consumers through loering the tax rate for the middle and lower class, we allow more people to purchase goods and services, thus growing small businesses.
This country hasn't had back to back to back two term (or more in FDR's case) Presidencies since FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. The last one before that was Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. That's twice in this country's history. I'm not saying it can't happen again with Clinton, Bush, Obama...but it's rare.
You are punished for success because as you move up the tax bracket, you take home a smaller percentage of your pay. Pretty simple explanation. And your points about utilization of public funds could easily be refuted with a myriad of counterexamples...the criminal court system, the drain of resources due to crime, social services, etc. All of these are relatively irrelevant to me, what is relevant to me is the unfair taxation system in this country that supposedly calls it a capitalistic.
Again, many studies have shown that a disproportionate amount of ALL government spending--that is, TAKEN AS A WHOLE--is spent for the benefit of the weathy and for large businesses. There is just no way around it. But this is getting off-track. I understand your point of view, and I respect it. I just ask that you not refer to Obama's policies as "socialism." I've been to socialist countries, probably before you were born, and they still existed in Eastern Europe. This is not socialism, not even Alexander Dubcek's "Socialism With a Happy Face" movement of 1968.
The USPS is as far from socialism as you can get. From it's origin up till last year, the USPS was the ONLY US Government Agency that completely paid for itself without any financial subsidy from taxes. It costs you nothing more than the price of the stamp.
And its one of the only efficient government agencies out there. I didn't know it paid for itself. Sending a letter works pretty well.
I said "American Socialism", which I interpret to include: 1. First the "stimulus package", which was completely ridiculous in the first place IMO. 2. Bailouts of Fannie/Freddie 3. Bailouts of AIG 4. Bailout program for greedy wall street executives, irresponsible borrowers, and failing banks Next: 5. Proposed additional stimulus package 6. Additional energy windfall profits tax stimulus package 7. Government renegotiating home loans that were agreed upon 8. Government paying for the principle on home loans for private individuals.
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]" check check check
