[Poll] Wealth Re-distribution?

Big Monkey

Veteran XV
[ ] For

[ ] Against

[ ] :lolwut:



Which one are you, and why?



I want to say against because I think you should be rewarded for hard work.

On the other hand, I also believe that there are plenty of people who were born in to money and haven't worked a day in their lives and on top of that are hording all they have. At the same time, it's not their fault they were born rich.

I'm torn.

What say ye?
 
what? you come after the things I've worked hard for and I will fucking shoot you in the face until I am dead.
 
Against.

What a stupid fucking idea... but it fits in with most americans who just want to do jack shit.
 
what? you come after the things I've worked hard for and I will fucking shoot you in the face until I am dead.

Better not make more than 250K then for the next 8 years.

define wealth re-distribution

The notion that the wealthy in this nation should be legally responsible for the less fortunate aka poor people, which apparently is 95% of the country.

If you make over x amount of money per year, you should bear more of the burden through taxation for no other reason than the amount you make.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism is driven by incentive, if hard work isn't going to be rewarded, there is no incentive.

It's not like the wealthy would cease to be wealthy.

If you work hard and are successful, you're going to be seriously well off.

The question is: Are you and/or should you be OK with making a smaller, but not tremendously significant, percentage than you would if you didn't have to deal with progressive taxation?
 
The notion that the wealthy in this nation should be legally responsible for the less fortunate aka poor people, which apparently is 95% of the country.

If you make over x amount of money per year, you should bear more of the burden through taxation for no other reason than the amount you make.

How do you figure that paying more taxes is only going to benefit poor people? You do realize that you're not giving money to poor people, you're giving money to the Gov't.
 
[x] For

Middle class drives this economy. Trickle down is a flawed and failed policy. The only way for everyone to thrive is for the largest percentage of consumers to be given priority in tax relief.
 
How do you figure that paying more taxes is only going to benefit poor people? You do realize that you're not giving money to poor people, you're giving money to the Gov't.

Which the Gov't is giving back to the poor people in social programs.
 
How do you figure that paying more taxes is only going to benefit poor people? You do realize that you're not giving money to poor people, you're giving money to the Gov't.

The gov is certainly doing many things with tax money, but last I checked a gigantic portion is dedicated to entitlements.

I really don't think that non-poor people are leeching all of that money just for kicks
 
When you cross over the $250,000 threshold, it only makes sense that you give back to the system that enabled your success -- without our societal infrastructure, no one would be making a goddamn penny.
 
Why 250K though? Who came up with that number and how is it justified?

It could be another number, but don't you think that seems more than fair?

I'm sure there are economists crunching the numbers as to where the line has to be drawn to bring in the necessary revenue while minimizing tax burden.
 
Middle of the line, some amount of regressive tax policy is good.

Btw, using meaningless political soundbites like 'trickle down economics' is vague and uneducated. When defined in a certain way, its trivially true.

Now, if by 'trickle down economics' one means supply side economics, thats a different story. The latter has always had some layer of truth to it, but its plagued by a number of inconsistencies and failings (just like every other economic system ever conceived).
 
Back
Top