Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

[straykat]

No one who creates this many jobs wants to take from the poor. As ugly as Trump's behavior and etiquette can be, I'm not going to take that from him.

If he really wanted to steal wealth, then he's going about it in the dumbest way imaginable. His reputation and companies have only dwindled since his election.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The difference is what rich people spend their money on. If we take from the rich to give to the poor they are helping those in need. If we don't, they choose to use it for their own purposes that serve nobody but themselves. Taking money from poor people is giving it back to the rich, so they actually are not receving the help that was promised to them. This is about doing what is morally right for society.

Who has the moral authority to decide for others what is morally right for society? It is not the role of government to decide what is morally right for society. Government's role is to keep order so that society can function. If taking from one to give to another keeps people orderly and compliant then government will do that. Morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

There is nothing moral about making the rich people get richer at the expense of the poor people getting poorer. Christians know this. It's not about the government deciding for others what is moral but actually being moral itself.

 

[straykat]

I don't think you have to pillage the rich to help matters. Coercion and acquiring wealth by force isn't moral either. Just cancel debts and get rid of usury altogether. That isn't moral to begin with. The Left wing of politics is right on this (although I wouldn't call it Left wing.. all ancient cultures have held a hatred for usury). The Republican ideal of a system that mostly focuses on job creation can work well with this. Both sides have wisdom to offer. Once people are unshackled from debt, even a simple job can lead to many more future opportunities.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Stray, you're still not getting it. Many people are poor because they are physically and/or mentally unable to work. Some people are only able to work part time or flexible hours for reasons out of their control.

 

[straykat]

Stray, you're still not getting it. Many people are poor because they are physically and/or mentally unable to work. Some people are only able to work part time or flexible hours for reasons out of their control.

I do get it. Believe me, I'm closer to that situation than you might think.

But this is already taken care of. Mentally ill people can lead productive and/or safe lives with government benefits as we speak. Those who can't might get institutionalized (not ideal, but if they don't have families, I'm afraid it's for their own good). All of this is already paid for by taxes/the State. I was under the impression of further distribution.... that people had something more in mind.

 

[GodLovesCats]

My problem was having too much money to be Medicaid eligible, but being unable to get living wage jobs. I want to see the government programs for low income people expanded to increase the amount disabled people can have in the bank and still be eligible.

 

[straykat]

My problem was having too much money to be Medicaid eligible, but being unable to get living wage jobs. I want to see the government programs for low income people expanded to increase the amount disabled people can have in the bank and still be eligible.

I'm sorry to hear that. That's definitely understandable. I can understand their caution, but a lot of the details seem outdated and need to be better adjusted.

 

[NotreDame]

The rich are rewarded for their work many times more than their work is actually worth while the poor often work extremely hard for very little reward.

So if the rich have to pay a larger percentage into social welfare programs to help the poor people they are often using and abusing to gain and retain their wealth, then they are giving back at least some portion of the wealth they took more than their fair share from those who helped them get it.

The money the poor receives is actually oftentimes their own money.

Not really. The money they receive through social welfare programs isn’t their own tax dollars paid to the feds and redistributed back to them. The money they receive through redistribution of the wealth by means of social welfare programs is vastly paid for by other, higher, socioeconomic classes.

Most poor people do work. Many work multiple jobs and are still poor.

Undoubtedly true.

They work just as hard or even harder as rich people who make much of the money they make off of the sweat and labor of the poor.

Not sure that is accurate, depending on what you mean by “rich.” Many wealthy people make most of their money, or a very significant portion of it, by means of investment and returns.

The poor are paid for their labor.

So if the rich have to pay a larger percentage into social welfare programs to help the poor people they are often using and abusing to gain and retain their wealth

What exactly are they “abusing” and “using” to “gain and retain their wealth”?

then they are giving back at least some portion of the wealth they took more than their fair share from those who helped them get it.

Who has something taken from them? What was taken? And what is the basis for ascertaining whether the amount is fair?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Notre Dane, the legal definition of rich is having a salary of at least $250,000 annually.

 

[NotreDame]

Most of us know or learn at some point the fact that many of the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than a middle income family. Example: someone like Buffet paying only 16% or 17% (while some of the very and ultra rich pay even far lower effective rates than that!), while his secretary, making vastly less income than Buffet pays a much higher rate than Buffet, such as 20%, or more. (Even though the income tax rates make it seem to most people as if the reverse would be the norm.)

The reality:

Rich: many pay shockingly lower rates, especially the very rich.

Average people: Pay higher rates.

Fact checking the claim: Clinton: Buffett said he pays lower tax rate than secretary

(or instead of a fact check, one could read an economics article discussing this in depth, if they think it's rare, and find out the reality)

We've heard the rationalizations for the special lower rates (I mean I read sympathetically the economic rationalizations/arguments in favor of those, not just some content free opinion pieces). But see, a lot of us don't buy those rationalizations, nor the even worse special breaks some get. We that have learned about some of that can make a reasonable guess at why Trump doesn't want his tax information released. He needs to maintain secrecy about that, one can guesstimate, as his voters might not like the bottom line at all.

Not really. This notion was propagated, in part anyway, by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two UC-Berkeley economists. Those two names may sound familiar to some, they presently advise or recently did advise the Elizabeth Warren campaign for president. They have been advocates for the wealth tax and Warren requested they assist her campaign, specifically in regards to the wealth tax.

Saez is the Director of Center for Equitable Growth. He’s been advocating for a wealth tax for awhile. His views on the subject are progressive. For a flavor,
Warren’s ‘wealth tax’ plan relies on findings of Berkeley economists

But for an article that rebuts your claims, read here:
No, the Poor Don’t Pay Higher Taxes Than the Rich

 

[NotreDame]

Notre Dane, the legal definition of rich is having a salary of at least $250,000 annually.

Where can I find this legal definition?

 

[bekkilyn]

Not really. The money they receive through social welfare programs isn’t their own tax dollars paid to the feds and redistributed back to them. The money they receive through redistribution of the wealth by means of social welfare programs is vastly paid for by other, higher, socioeconomic classes.



Undoubtedly true.



Not sure that is accurate, depending on what you mean by “rich.” Many wealthy people make most of their money, or a very significant portion of it, by means of investment and returns.

The poor are paid for their labor.



What exactly are they “abusing” and “using” to “gain and retain their wealth”?



Who has something taken from them? What was taken? And what is the basis for ascertaining whether the amount is fair?

And the *only* reason that any money the poor receive through the social welfare programs isn't their own tax dollars is because the wealthy already took 90% much of their wealth long before it was unfairly and unevenly distributed. That the rich might actually have to pay back some of it through taxes for the benefit of those who actually helped them or even did all of the labor for a pittance isn't exactly unfair since rich only have what they have due to the labor of those who helped them along the way. To believe that they *earned* it all themselves and thus are more deserving is a false fantasy.

It's one thing for some people to make more money than others. That's just life. It's far, far another thing for the income gap to be so extraordinarily wide that a tiny percent of the population hoard the largest percent of the wealth and everyone else barely has a living wage if they even have that on top of a middle class that has shrunk so much that it is danger of extinction.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What do you think the dems do when they spend billions of American tax dollars spent in handouts to corrupt foreign politicians to prop up corporations or the billions in endless foreign wars in order to have access to airspace, pipelines or their precious resources in order to benefit large corporations?

Those are American tax dollars that could be going to Americans, for American infrastructure or American public programs - but instead we are enriching the corporations and lining the pockets of our politicians who are so rich they can't even comprehend the mindset of the working class..

Oh but Trumps a pickpocket now - maybe that helps you sleep at night and ignore the policies and actions of your favorite politicians who've been suckling the public treasury since before you were born and caused you to end up with nothing but empty promises that never manage to make it to the American table..

Here's your bread and circus..

it ought to keep you distracted while Rome burns. .. when its over our children will all be slaves..

 

[GodLovesCats]

Where can I find this legal definition?

I was just relying on memory that people who earn $250,000 every year get tax breaks.

 

[NotreDame]

To believe that they *earned* it all themselves and thus are more deserving is a false fantasy.

It's one thing for some people to make more money than others. That's just life. .

And the *only* reason that any money the poor receive through the social welfare programs isn't their own tax dollars is because the wealthy already took 90% much of their wealth long before it was unfairly and unevenly distributed.

How did the “wealthy” take “their wealth”? How do you arrive at the number “90%” of the wealth was taken?

That the rich might actually have to pay back some of it through taxes for the benefit of those who actually helped them or even did all of the labor for a pittance isn't exactly unfair since rich only have what they have due to the labor of those who helped them along the way.

If one were to accept as true your assumption the laborer, who is poor, is owed more than they received from the “rich,” but I’m not so inclined to defer to such an assumption. There’s been no evidentiary showing the laborer, who is poor, was owed more.

And laborers are not the only necessary condition for the rich to have some business make a profit. Regardless, the fact laborers are necessary for a businesses to make a profit doesn’t establish they are entitled to more than they received.

What are you basing the claim of “unfair” upon? Because you said so?

It's far, far another thing for the income gap to be so extraordinarily wide that a tiny percent of the population hoard the largest percent of the wealth and everyone else barely has a living wage if they even have that on top of a middle class that has shrunk so much that it is danger of extinction

Stunning. In the same post you deride fiction you then resort to fiction.

A considerable number of “everyone else” has a living wage. Your view is an untenable and false zero sum game approach that if the rich have more then there is magically less for you.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hyperbole of a middle class in “danger of extinction”

 

[Halbhh]

Not really. This notion was propagated, in part anyway, by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two UC-Berkeley economists. Those two names may sound familiar to some, they presently advise or recently did advise the Elizabeth Warren campaign for president. They have been advocates for the wealth tax and Warren requested they assist her campaign, specifically in regards to the wealth tax.

Saez is the Director of Center for Equitable Growth. He’s been advocating for a wealth tax for awhile. His views on the subject are progressive. For a flavor,
Warren’s ‘wealth tax’ plan relies on findings of Berkeley economists

But for an article that rebuts your claims, read here:
No, the Poor Don’t Pay Higher Taxes Than the Rich

I said the middle class pays higher rates. Not the poor.

So, since you addressed something completely unrelated to what I said....

Are you interested in checking the information that the ultra rich pay a lower rate of overall taxes than the middle class? ( "middle class" means those in the middle, not the "poor", of course. just to be sure you get what I said this time)

Here's from another site, checking the information:

Buffett vs. his secretary

We fact-checked Warren Buffett's statements about taxes in the New York Times. Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent." Individual tax filings are private, so there was no way we could compare Buffett's actual tax return with that of his secretary and other co-workers. (We contacted his office when we did the fact-check and didn't hear back.) So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True.
Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?

------
Are the long term capital gains tax rates still the same as they were when Buffett told us what was happening?

Answer: Yes.

2019 Capital Gains Tax Rates — and How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

 

[GodLovesCats]

What do you think the Democrats do when they spend billions of American tax dollars spent in handouts to corrupt foreign politicians to prop up corporations or the billions in endless foreign wars in order to have access to airspace, pipelines or their precious resources in order to benefit large corporations?

You have to mean Republicans in that question. Democrats spend billions of dollars on the Americans who need the money, housing, edibles, and/or health insurance that they can't get otherwise get.

 

[variant]

It's worse than all that.

Farm subsidies tend to be received more by much richer farmers, that can then use them to help drive smaller farmers out of business.

 

[Go Braves]

Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

Well, yeah. That's long been his M.O.