Do you support the democrat argument for wealth redistribution or the republican?

Question

The democratic argument: The concentration of wealth in a small group allows for anti-democratic influence of social policy. The wealthy have the ability to create their own "think tanks" and astro-turf front organizations. These are then used to create the perception that the public is in support of their self-serving objectives. Recent studies have shown how these techniques were used in the repeal of the estate tax debate as well as in the rise of new factions opposing the liberal social policies of the Episcopal church. When such vast amounts of money are under the control of a tiny group the basic mechanisms of democracy are undermined.

The Republican.....

Poor people are lazy (or inferior).

This argument is that salvation is found through work. Thus those who become wealthy are "blessed" and deserve their rewards. Those who are poor are to blame in some fashion for their position in society and government intervention to alter the balance will only lead to even more lazy people and the eventual breakdown of society.

Answer 1

I think people should be self reliant and responsible for themselves.

Answer 2

That's a pretty biased presentation of the two sides. Are you really looking for honest answers or just answers that support your own position?

That being said, I do not support the democratic argument. Even rich people have the right to convince voters to support certain policies. Essentially, the democratic argument is suggesting that we take money away from an unfavorable group so that they can not advance their positions in the marketplace of ideas. That sounds very anti-American and almost fascistic to me.

What I support is letting people freely produce and trade with each other with minimal government interference. If I earn money, or if someone decides to give me money, then it's mine. You or no one else has the right to decide that I have "too much," as long as what I've got was the result of peaceful cooperation and trade with others.

Answer 3

I don't think redistribution of wealth is good at all. Because with this wealth goes into the taxes, therefore there are more social programs for the public, therefore people become more dependent on government.

That's not what the country was founded on. The country was founded on that people should be self-reliant and self-confident enough to look after themselves.

Federal Government should only look after laws and regulations, our border, our defense, etc.

Otherwise the more social programs we have, the more debt we'll have. We already know that we have 9 trillion dollars in debt! Get rid of overseas spending, get rid of social programs spending, get rid of the social security and get rid of the income tax!

A great example is this whole debate of universal health care. Why should we spend so much money, as a "society," on the care of our health, and not the preventive health care. Plus why should someone who takes care of their body pay for the health of someone who prefers atrophy and eating the most unhealthy foods?

Answer 4

I defy you to show me any part of the Constitution of the United States that allows anything resembling our current "earnings theft and redistribution" system that rewards laziness with a check and welfare state programs while punishing hard work and personal advancement with increasing taxes to pay for those communist welfare state programs. If you aren't making as much money as you think you should, go to school and get a better job. Bitching about your lot in life is NOT a job!

Answer 5

Well, there is not much redistribution of wealth in this country.

- The rich get large tax deductions on their houses. The poor rent.

- The rich get tax benifits with their health insurance, 401k's, IRA's and health savings accounts. The poor have less or no health insurance, usually no 401k's or health savings accounts.

- The rich can pay for the best accountants and tax consultants to find and exploit every loophole in the tax code. The poor have to do their own taxes or pay a mediocre accountant to spend 10 minutes going over their tax return.

- The rich tend to live longer, taking advantage of Social Security and Medicare for decades. The poor tend to die younger, never receiving most of the money they put into the system.

Answer 6

Let me help you with the Republican strategy for wealth redistribution:

lower taxes makes more people work
More people work means higher production
higher production means higher exports

World wealth redistributed to America

(You're not really a big picture person, are you?)

Answer 7

Try the following. It is in the format you can understand, pictures:

http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/

I checked out your page. You own a business; great. I am sure you do a great job at it. Now answer this question, what would you do if the government, say the local municipality simply decided to start a service doing what you do?

We suffer municipal liquor stores, municipal recreation centers (work out centers, gymnasium, meeting halls) that chase away higher quality private operations. What would you do if they decided they want your revenue stream?

Answer 8

here we go again ! another "either or" question. another "you're either with us or against us" and no room for anything in between..both positions have benefits and the answer is to identify these benefits and apply them to the real world.

contentement is achieved through hard work. wether you're a business person, an inventor, an athlete , a teacher, a plumber, a nurse or whatever, your hard work needs to be rewarded. the rewards you get are well- deserved and well-earned. no one should be denied an incentive. and using the same argument, a lazy person should not be monetarilly rewarded if it's his or her choice to be lazy. there is no shame in being wealthy through hard work and legal means. therefore i embrace this ethos wether it's republican or democratic.

at the same time, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minute elite is dangerous for the well-being of the country both economically and socially. wealth begets power and power, if used and weilded abberantly, will corrupt.

how can we accomodate both of these together ? you institute a fair taxation system that rewards hard work yet fairly taxes work so as to avoid a concentration of abusive power. the way to that is the continued support that both parties should have for the american middle-class. the middle-class needs to be expanded at all times. the foundation of u.s democracy is the middle class. both parties need to reduce taxation on the middle-class and create or expand on tax credits in favor of education , promote wealth building through investment credits, always aim to increase homeownership using sound financial lending practices, promoting affordable health care solutions and even expanding tax benefits on retirement accounts.

i agree with the republicans when they advocate an "ownership society" where the middle-class is invested not only in their homes but also in financial instruments like stocks, bonds or business partnerships. i also believe in "compassionate conservatism" where work is rewarded but giving is also encouraged through tax breaks. government can't educate. it can mandate but it can't achieve due to the fact that it's a bureaucracy and a non-vested structure. charity for the low income citizenry be it quality education or healthcare is better administered by the private sector through foundations and endowments than it is by faceless government bureaucrats.

it's unfair that warren buffet's effective tax rate in 2006 was 17.70% when the effective tax rates of his employees who earn much less than him is 32.90%. his receptionist's tax rate was 30% !!! something's wrong here. that information was obtained from an interview buffet himself gave last june please see reference link below....reproted by most business publications and newswires. evn by buffet in cnn interview.

whoever is elected president should reduce tax rates on the middle and lower income class. reduce corporate taxes to compete with euro and asian nations. our 32% corporate tax rate is much higher than many european countries and japan for example. reducing corporate tax rates spurs investment in the u.s thus creating jobs here not overseas where they might go if a foreign nation offers lower tax rates for a multi-national corporation. such a lowering of corporate tax rates might result in a reverse outsourcing movement back to the u.s. at the same time, the tax rate for the top earners ( say over $2mm) should be increased back to a minimum of 39% from the current 33%-35%. the top earners will not complain because reducing taxes on the middle class will spur the economy to grow vigourously so as to make up for them paying higher taxes and the rich might even see their incomes rise because of the stronger economic activity.

one most often mentioned reason for the fall of the roman empire was the disparity of incomes and wealth fortunes between a wealthy elite and the rest of society especially the middle-class --(which was initially the reason why the roman empire became an empire. economic prosperity for ALL classes makes for greatness)-- that increased disparity led to increased militiralization, corruption and social degradation, and the empire fell. does it sound familiar ??

Answer 9

If you redistribute everyone's wealth, suddenly there's no reason for people to work hard to enter the professions that pay more, like doctors, and lawyers, engineers and accountants. People will figure this out, and stop reaching for them. To combat this, the government will then have to mandate people's professions, and that's communism. We spent far too much time fighting communism to live in it here.

Answer 10

So, that's the republican argument for wealth redistribution in your opinion???

I never thought republicans had an argument FOR wealth redistribution.

None of the republicans I hang out with espouse that idea.... but heck, being the flaming liberal that you are, you would know what I think much better than I do.

Answer 11

I'd be more concerned with this: In what has to rank as either one of the most egregious distortions (or maybe just delusional ravings as the New York Daily News suggests) that has emerged from the Bush administration, President Bush in an interview with New Yorker reporter Ken Auletta claimed that “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.” Such a statement is extraordinary given that Amnesty International condemned the United States in 2002 for being one of the world leaders in human rights violations.

Similarly a number of organizations such as Human Rights Watch, U.S. Human Rights Network, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Amnesty International have accused the Bush administration itself of engaging in various human rights violations, including preventing foreign nationals held as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from gaining access to US courts, executing juvenile offenders, engaging in racial profiling, detention, inhumane treatment, and deportation of Muslim immigrants after September 11, 2001, and the refusing to ratify the American convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and numerous other international agreements aimed at protecting human rights.

Official Newspeak points to not only questions regarding the abuse of power, it also raises questions about what kind of cultural politics is necessary to expose such myths and defeat what Edward Said has called “the imposed silence and normalized quiet of unseen power wherever and whenever possible.”

This is both a political and pedagogical task that demands that intellectuals and others speak out, break through the haze of official discourse and memory, and take seriously a cultural politics that connects critical knowledge and understanding with the possibility of social engagement and transformation. At the very least, this suggests recognizing the many sites of pedagogy (from the Internet to alternative magazines) in which ideology can be challenged and rearticulated in the interest of transforming the conditions that impose both silence and human suffering. It means connecting the sites in which we work, whether in higher education, the arts, journalism, the media, or other dominant and alternative public spheres with those individuals, groups, and issues that make up everyday life.

At stake here is the need to reconnect matters of theory and practice, critical understanding and civic engagement, and to do so from the recognition that we need to reach as many people as possible.

Regardless the ideological oversights and theoretical sloppiness that marks Michael Moore’s work, he should be studied as a model for redefining public pedagogy as crucial tool for political engagement. Similarly, progressives and others need to become attentive to matters of audience and language, reaching out to young people and others who tend to be marginalized in the official languages of dominant power and unfortunately in the language of many progressives.

Making the political more pedagogical means that progressives and others need to be attentive to how people connect intellectually and affectively to language, political issues, and values that shape their lives. This is no small matter because consciousness is the ground on which agency is developed and political action even becomes understandable.

At the present moment, The F.B.I. is mounting a campaign to silence individuals planning to protest at the upcoming Republican Presidential Convention. This signals not only the crude way in which authoritarianism works, it also signals the power of critical discourse and its possibilities for disrupting ideologies and material relations of power.

We need to both condemn such acts of government repression while at the same time expanding the conditions that make them necessary for those who hold power. Critical consciousness, autonomy, the ability to make power visible, to become aware of alternative histories and communities of struggle is the stuff of not simply political awareness but of what makes politics possible in the first place.