redistribute-wealth

anonymous asked:

I followed you because you are a communist. what can I say to people to say that "communism had never worked. Capitalism works better" ???

First I don’t think we should just accept the capitalist idea that socialist countries “didn’t work.” They succeeded in many things, including national liberation, universal healthcare and education, wealth/land redistribution, destroying feudalism and colonialism in their countries, full employment, long vacations and maternity leaves, and more. While I’m very critical of the Soviet-style economy followed in these countries, I would still call them socialist. They were at some point anyways. Capitalists have large footholds in Laos, Vietnam, and China, and even the DPRK, and I wouldn’t call any of those countries socialist anymore (especially considering the DPRK has removed all references to communism from its constitution and follows an ideology that is closer to liberalism than marxism-leninism) And Cuba has a growing middle-class signaling its own return to capitalism. Anyways.

If those countries “didn’t work” than capitalism surely isn’t working. There are people dying in the streets while houses lie empty (i believe its 13 houses to every homeless person in America). Half the population of the world goes hungry every day, while our grocery stores throw out food that isn’t sold. People die of treatable diseases because they can’t afford to go to the hospital. Capitalism was built off of slave labor in the US and the forced moving of peasants off their lands into cities in Europe. It was maintained by colonialism and imperialism by both. Capitalism relies off of the exploitation of the working class in order to be capitalism. And capitalism routinely has breakdowns. Just look at Greece now, or 2008, or the Great Depression. The whole system is based on violence and appropriation, so to say its working begs the question: Who is it working for?

CBO: Top 40% of earners paid 106.2% of taxes, bottom 40% received $18,950 in "government transfers"

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a stunning report about the share of income taxes each person in the United States pays.  The study shows that redistribution of wealth is not some right-wing conspiracy; it’s the reality of the American economy under our absurd tax code.

from CNS:

The top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation’s net income taxes in 2010, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, households in the bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers” in 2010.

Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.”

“When refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, exceed the other federal tax liabilities of the households in an income group, those households are said to have a negative average tax rate,” said the CBO study.

“In its analysis, CBO measured individual income taxes net of refundable credits,” it said.

In 2010, the CBO determined, American households in the bottom 40 percent paid negative amounts in income-tax dollars and a negative average income-tax rate.

“Much of the progressivity of the federal tax system derives from the individual income tax,” said the report. “In 2010, the lowest quintile’s average rate for the individual income tax was -9.2 percent and the second income quintile’s rate was -2.3 percent.”

read the rest

The next time one of your friends on Facebook shares that goofy nonsense about the “wealth gap” in the United States, you point them here and let them look at this chart:

I didn’t make it up. This chart and these figures come straight from the CBO. You can take a look at the entire study if you like (PDF)

Liberals like to talk a lot about “fairness,” but there’s nothing fair about the government stealing income away from the people earned it and transferring it to people who did not. Even with such a slanted tax code, the “income gap” in the United States continues to grow, and why?  Because our government has decided to punish people for their success, and you cannot build a strong middle class or a strong economy that way. After all, why work at all if you can sit at home and wait for your “government transfer”?

m.us.wsj.com
Casey Mulligan: A Recovery Stymied by Redistribution - WSJ

All of these programs have in common that they, like taxes, reduce incentives to work and earn. The cornerstone of “The Redistribution Recession” is to quantify the sum total of these incentives and their changes over time. That’s what I call the marginal tax rate, by which I mean the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working. Waves of new programs increased the typical marginal tax rate from 40 to 48%.

Businesses just want to increase their profits; it’s up to the government to make sure they distribute enough of those profits so workers have the money to buy the goods they produce,” Mujica told businessmen at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s no mystery — the less poverty, the more commerce. The most important investment we can make is in human resources.
New York Times: Yeah, Obamacare is pretty much a giant wealth redistribution scheme

We’ve said it since day 1.  Obamacare isn’t about providing more affordable health care to Americans, it’s about redistribution of wealth.  Liberals laughed at us and called us “conspiracy theorists.” However, now that millions of Americans are seeing their health insurance plans cancelled, and even the Obama administration is admitting that they expect the majority of health insurance to be cancelled under Obamacare, it’s finally time for liberals to eat some crow. 

Obamacare is about redistribution, pure and simple. 

from New York Times:

he Affordable Care Act was a similar semantic sidestep. The law targeted high earners, too, by raising their Medicare taxes enough to reduce their after-tax incomes by nearly 2 percent, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That revenue helped finance coverage for those currently without insurance, who tend to have lower incomes and who in many cases will receive government subsidies to make their premiums cheaper.

And yet for those nervous about potential changes, the president promised stability. “If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance,” Mr. Obama said the day he signed the legislation in March 2010, a promise he made repeatedly as the Oct. 1 opening day of the online health insurance marketplaces approached.

Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge — visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.

The law, for example, banned rate discrimination against women, which insurance companies called “gender rating” to account for their higher health costs. But that raised the relative burden borne by men. The law also limited how much more insurers can charge older Americans, who use more health care over all. But that raised the relative burden on younger people.

And the law required insurers to offer coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, which eased costs for less healthy people but raised prices for others who had been charged lower rates because of their good health.

“The A.C.A. is very much about redistribution, whether or not its advocates acknowledge that this is the case,” wrote Reihan Salam on the website of the conservative National Review.

read the rest

The entire premise of Obamacare is based upon wealth distribution, and it’s time for the American people to acknowledge that. 

mr robot

-POC main character (bonus: it’s akmenrah from natm!!!! he’s so cute!!!!)

-girl and boy who are friends an not ship teased

-ugh he’s a hacker vigilante with social anxiety and he’s so cute

-centers around shutting down the world economy and redistributing world wealth heck yeah

-it’s so cool pls watch

-premieres TONIGHT on USA

-mr robot

& obvi i’m pretty fuckin white looking and i want to always keep that in mind. but getting huge honoraria for POC who speak on campus is something that’s important to me & should take precedence over sharing articles for cookies!!!!

Surprise! "Wealth gap" in US grows to record level under Obama

Look, I’m not one to play the politics of the “haves and have nots,” but Barack Obama has made a career out of it.  However, under the leadership of the man who said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” the gap between America’s richest and America’s poorest has grown to record levels.  

from LA Times:

The wealth gap between middle- and upper-income households has widened to the highest level on record, says a new report.

Using the latest Federal Reserve data, the Pew Research Center said Wednesday that the median wealth for high-income families was $639,400 last year — up 7% from three years earlier on an inflation-adjusted basis.

For middle-income families, the median wealth — that is, assets minus debts — stood at $96,500 last year, unchanged from 2010.

The result is that the typical wealth of the nation’s upper-income households last year was nearly seven times that of middle-class ones. By Pew’s calculations, that is the biggest gap in the 30 years that the Fed has been collecting statistics from its Survey of Consumer Finances.

“The latest data reinforces the larger story of America’s middle-class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades,” Pew said. “The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families’ wealth, and the economic ‘recovery’ has yet to be felt for them.”

In Pew’s definition, middle-income households are those earning between two-thirds and twice the median income, after adjusting for household size. The median marks the halfway point.

For example, a one-person household was categorized as middle income if its earnings last year were at least $22,000 but less than $66,000. For a four-person family to qualify as middle income, earnings had to be at least $44,000 but less than $132,000.

Based on these thresholds, 46% of American households were classified as middle income last year. One-third were considered lower income, and 21% upper income.

read the rest

Look, I don’t begrudge anybody their wealth.  I don’t even care if they didn’t work a day in their life for it (because their parents most likely worked their tails off!).  I don’t care if you literally have a Scrooge McDuck swimming pool where you keep your money.  What you do with your money is your business.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.  It’s not a fixed pie.  Just because you have, doesn’t mean I can’t have also.  When one pie is eaten, basic economics teaches that we can simply make another pie.  One person being rich does not mean that one person has to be poor. That’s not the way economics works.

What I do care about is when politicians claim they’re fighting the so-called “wealth gap” and turn around to pass policies that literally destroy wealth.  Look, perhaps President Obama really does believe in the “wealth gap” nonsense.  Perhaps he really has passed policies like Obamacare with the intent of punishing the wealthy and giving the poor more opportunity.  But clearly, those policies aren’t working, even for his own stated purposes.  They’re only exacerbating the gap.  

I’ll leave you with a video of my favorite explanation of “the gap.”  It’s from the fabulous Margaret Thatcher during her last visit to parliament as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:

“He would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”  That has Obama written all over it. 

me: hey lets kill the rich and redistribute their wealth
everyone: nah i’m gonna reblog the money cat and see what happens

My sense has long been that the tea party movement is a response built on fear based on the diminishing stature of the U.S. in the world and potentially lower standards of living at home and the kind of selfishness that can accompany that fear. My hope is that the recent rise of liberal sentiment is based on a growing understanding that if we are to survive intact we have to learn to share what we have, which means, horror of horrors, we have to talk about how best to redistribute the wealth.

anonymous asked:

What about social democracy? Unregulated capitalism will eventually destroy society in the way you just described, but social democracy is a economic and political system which is capitalist (i.e. owners of businesses ad property are mostly private) which ameliorates the negative excesses of capitalism through regulation and policies (redistribution of wealth through universal healthcare, quality public education, progressive tax system, minimum wage or income, unemployment insurance, etc.)

If we have to live with capitalism I do prefer social democracy. That’s why I widely support the NDP and their policies.

But in general, I’d still rather get a better system than capitalism rather than bandaid its problems. Capitalism even with policies that tries to make it less terrible, is still terrible.

The redistributive economy: Households now worth a third less

In the interest of full disclosure, these numbers go all the way back to 2003, 5 years before Obama took office. But who is to blame isn’t nearly as important as what is to blame.

From the NYT:

Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.

The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.

…For households at the median level of net worth, much of the damage has occurred since the start of the last recession in 2007. Until then, net worth had been rising for the typical household, although at a slower pace than for households in higher wealth brackets. 

The reasons for these declines are complex and controversial, but one point seems clear: When only a few people are winning and more than half the population is losing, surely something is amiss.

Read the Rest

Today, it’s seemingly impossible to go anywhere without hearing something about the “income gap.” This, of course, being the notion that richer people are getting richer at a faster pace than others. But, apart from envy, the income gap isn’t a real problem in and of itself, but, rather, more of an indicator that there might be a problem. Median income, however, is an actual, tangible economic problem. After all, I don’t care that my neighbor has more than he needs as long as I have what I need.

Until 2007, median household income was rising. Then came the recession. Since the recession began, Median household income has fallen dramatically and the income gap has gotten wider. But why?

A Keynesian reaction to a sluggish economy is to spend – borrow, print and redistribute – unfathomable amounts of money to keep the economy afloat (something that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama did). But even by their own standards, it didn’t work. In fact, it made things worse by giving us massive amounts of debt, more people on welfare rolls, inflation, fewer people in the work force, a lowering of the median income and a widening of the income gap, etc.

This is because redistributive policies, or even the mere threat of them, generally cause those with capital to spend, hire and invest less. This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, If a wealthy person knows that their money is going to be targeted for redistribution, why would they spend it? When an investor suspects that the federal government is primed to raise the tax on a particular item, service or company, the he would be stupid to invest in it. Similarly, the owner of a company of 49 employees would be out of her mind to hire a 50th employee, knowing that, because of Obamacare, they’re going to be taxed tremendously for doing so.

Disincentives and uncertainty like this cause the wealthy to hold on to their money, which exacerbates things like the income gap, the unemployment rate, and median income. In short, when the government tries to alleviate income inequality through taxes and legislation, it usually makes it worse. This shouldn’t be controversial. It’s economics.

Per usual, the solution to this problem is more liberty.

Brittle: Video: Milton Friedman: Liberty and Equality?

Brittle: Video: Milton Friedman: Liberty and Equality?


Brittle: Video: Milton Friedman: Liberty and Equality?

As libertarian economist Milton Friedman said, a society that aims for equality over liberty, will have neither. The reason being that if you keep taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, you take incentive that people need to make money. Because government will just jack it away from them. If society aims for liberty so people can live…

View On WordPress

Bailed-out banker praises capitalism, attacks parasites #5yrsago


Matt Ridley’s book The Rational Optimist is about mankind’s long-term ability to make things better, not worse. Sounds great! But it’s also got some stuff attacking wealth-redistributing bureaucratic parasites who stifle businesses by intervening in free markets. This is interesting because Ridley is the discredited Northern Rock chairman whose company received a $40bn state bailout after the company’s near-collapse and the first run on a British bank since the Victorian era. [Guardian]

Read the rest…