Government should not play the role of Robin Hood - taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
swdowning said 07/31, 07:01 AM
The current tax code punishes the successful among us and rewards those who are unsuccessful. The "progressive" tax structure creates a dis-incentive for the affluent to re-invest in our economy, while our lavish spending on welfare and other social programs rewards a lack of productivity.
We lose much more than economic productivity in this transfer of wealth. Government should not be in the business of "womb-to-tomb" protection, and successful entrepreneurs should be encouraged, rather than hobbled.
Mark said 07/31, 12:51 PM
before talking about this topic u have to understand several things. democracy and a free market aren't very compatible. In our society, the more money you have, the more power you have. That is why the government should "play the role of Robin Hood" to provide economic equality to all people, and not just the rich or those born into rich families.
Welfare and social programs don't "reward" a lack of productivity. What they do is provide money to ppl for a predetermined amount of time until the person gets a job and moves on with his or her life. It's only helping the ppl. The current tax code provides the rich tax cuts because they wish to keep their money and refuse to have economic equality cuz they know that once that happens they're political control will be diminished.
Also, while Harry Truman was president, he increased the tax so those making above $500,000 were taxed 50% of their income. the result?
Economic equality beyond comprehension. The end of the Great Depression, and the decrease of the poor in the country. Most of those without money became the middle or richer class. Economic equality is what this country needs the most cuz it helps the poor and this country.
swdowning said 08/03, 02:43 AM
First, we don't have to reconcile democracy with a free market, because neither truly exists in America. We have a democratic republic and a market that is free only to the extent that the government hasn't figured out a way to increase its control over it.
By "economic equality," you mean redistribution of wealth, right? You think that it's intrinsically unjust that some people are richer than others, and you believe that government has the right to correct this inequality. Why is economic equality to be desired, and by what authority does the federal government have the power to effect it?
Take a look at the most robust attempt to help the needy in America: LBJ's Great Society. 30 years after spending enough money to buy every square acre of farmland and every Fortune 500 company in the US, violent crime, illegitimate births, divorce rates, the percentage of children living in single-parent homes, and the teenage suicide rate were all up significantly, while SAT scores had dropped 80 points.
Government's attempt to use wealth redistribution as a tool of social engineering has failed miserably.
Unfettered capitalism works better than the gov's attempt at equality.
Mark said 08/03, 03:19 PM
your wrong. i don't believe that it being being rich is unjust. i do believe that everyone deserves an equal chance at becoming rich. shouldn't a poor boy have equal oppurtunities as a rich boy to strive in life? or should the rich boy have an advantage over him because his father has more money?
U misunderstand what i mean by economic equality. I mean that by things like welfare to help the ppl WITH LIMITS will help suffering families move up the block. You also have to consider that when everyone has economic equality, we can all strive for different things equally, and no one will have an unfair advantage over the other because of money. Again, money means power. So if everyone had somewhat equal pay or in other words economic equality than no one could abuse the system in the way the rich do now.
u seem to believe that we should ignore the poor and suffering ppl as well as the suffering middle class and let the rich make more money and against more power above all else. The to 10% make 90% of all the money in the country. True they were successful, but there are many ppl who want to be successful but don't have the economic means of doing so.
swdowning said 08/04, 07:50 AM
An equal chance is guaranteed; succeeding is not. The government can't ensure success. Nobody has ever been taxed into success. The redistribution of wealth is the attempt to level the playing field at the individual level. But it can't work. When people succeed, they invest in the economy, which creates jobs (and taxpayers). This is how we have become an economic force, and it is why gov't should get out of the way.
The worst element of gov't as Robin Hood is this: we can't redistribute wealth without simultaneously transferring power from the people to the state. Every such shift of wealth means a loss of individual liberty.
Think about the effects of your proposal. You think we all should earn the same, mandated by gov't. So you think a garbageman should earn the same as a doctor. Why then shouldn't someone who is qualified to be a doctor save the expense, time, and effort that becoming a doctor requires in favor of being a garbageman? He'll earn the same in either case. Your proposal will result in a lower quality of professional care (be it legal, medical - whatever).
The wealthy create jobs and should not be punished by onerous taxation to effect anachronistic "equality."
Mark said 08/04, 03:17 PM
what i'm basically arguing, is that history shows that when taxes when up for the extremely rich so did the economy. More jobs were made, poverty decreased, unemployed decreased and less ppl were on welfare.
once we started giving them tax cuts, the result? our economy today. The richer are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Not cuz they are lazy, but cuz they don't and probably won't have the same oppurtunities as the rich do in today's economy. That's why the government should be helping them and "acting like Robin Hood". I showed you historical evidence about how good everything went when taxes for the rich were higher but you seemed to have ignored that. u argue that we haven't had success which my 1st argument says to the contrary with Harry Truman.
ur distoring my stance. i never said we should all earn the same. I was did say is that we should all be given the same economic oppurtunities both rich and poor. I NEVER said it was to be mandated. you simply chose to distort my stance to gain points and show me in a wrong light.
btw, in my "plan" doctors will still be paid much more than garbage man but the garbage ment will have help to make ends meet.
Comments
Add Your Comment
i wish the guy would respond and make an argument for once!
Mark | 08/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
Please... we already redistribute the wealth. The top 5% pay 60% of the Federal Income Tax (the bottom 50% pays 3%). Property taxes are based on the value of the home - the family in the mansion pays a hell of a lot more than the family in the inner city row house. Sales tax is obvious - spend more on stuff, pay more in tax. Gasoline tax - it costs much more to tank up the Escalade or Hummer than it does to fill the Focus. The upper income brackets keep our economy running - I've never worked for a poor guy. "From those who have to those who need" is communist/socialist junk. We need AND HAVE a safety net for those who need assistance. PLUS we're the most generous country in the world when is comes to private charity. If the "poor" keep waiting for success to "trickle down" to them they'll keep sitting at the bottom of the drain. Get an education, work, learn a trade, work. Quit blaming and penalizing others. We're the greatest nation in the world because we're capitalists and we celebrate personal responsibility and initiative.
GenialFascist | 08/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
i'm not saying that the upper class doesn't help the economy but they use their wealth to get ahead of everyone else in opportunity, education..etc. you are also mistaken when it comes to the taxes. because of Bush's tax cuts the richest ppl only pay about 39% of their income mostly because he is rich and doesnt' want to pay more taxes once he leaves office. we give huge amounts of money to other countries to help us but we need help here more than ever. but we have to limit how much money(which means power)is given to these ppl to create equal oppurtunity.
Mark | 08/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Mark, while I agree with most of your argument, I think you are confusing the usage of free market in your connection with democracy. The capitalist environment of a free market where individuals compete for resources, market share, and profits is intrinsically connected with the competitive atmosphere of a democratic system where individuals or parties compete for votes, power, and position. By your analogy, the governmental system with the strongest aptitude for democracy would be the one with the most regulated economy. Conversely, the strongest free market system would create a despotic tyranny. I think history has chosen the opposite to be true in both circumstances. Even a simple comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union would hold this be true. I think you are closer to the mark when you speak about economic equality. A free market system that higher levels of economic equality would be better suited for a democratic system than a heavily regulated market system. However, I think it is too much to assume that a free market automatically establishes drastic economic equality.
Nikolai | 08/04/08
Report Offensive Comment
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. (based on adjusted gross income) earn 22% of the agi, and they pay 40% of income taxes collected by the IRS. The top 5% of earners earn 37% of the agi and they pay 60% of all federal income tax collected. The top 25% earn 68% of all income and they pay 86% of all federal income tax collected. The top 50% of earners earn 88% of all income and they pay 97% of all federal income tax collected. The bottom 50% of earners earn 12% of all income, and they pay 3% of all federal income tax collected. These data come from the IRS. Mark - you wrote "...so if everyone had somewhat equal pay or in other words economic equality than [sic] no one could abuse the system in the way the rich do now." That's a quote from your second argument. In your third argument you wrote "I never said we should all earn the same." Yes, Mark, you did. But of course you're free to change your mind.
swdowning | 08/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
no you mis understood. i never said we would all be the same. i said " if everyone had SOMEWHAT equal pay or in OTHER WORDS ECONOMIC EQUALITY than no one could abuse the system." your facts about the richest ppl paying taxes are very flawed. i want to know your sources. everyone knows that the richest in the country get massive tax cuts from the current administration. so they actually don't end up paying anywhere near what your saying they are paying in taxes. get your facts straight plz.
Mark | 08/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
swdowing. i have to give you credit. this debate between us has become the one of the most voted for in the whole site. we've helped get ppl back into this site. good work. and smart choice of topic. i'm glad this was so competitive because there were times when you were a ahead than I then you then we tied and so on. so kudos to you. i wouldn't mind doing something like this against you another time. feel free to invite me to any new debate.
Mark | 08/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with the basic argument, but I consider Robin Hood more of a conservative anyway; after all, he's helping citizens flee the crippling persecution of over-taxation. :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/06/08
Report Offensive Comment
The last seven votes for Mark came from the same IP address.
EDModr8or | 08/08/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
When one considers the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own 71% of all private wealth, the logic of a progressive income tax becomes self evident. Clearly the other 90% of us aren't lazy or unmotivated. And, oh yeah, Horatio Alger is a myth perpetuated by those born into wealth to justify a system of taxation in which, as Leona Helmsley once said, the rich don't pay taxes. So, yeah, let's bring Robin Hood back, cause the trickle down theory ain't trickling down to me.
The Skeptic | 08/01/08
Report Offensive Comment