Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Redistributing the Wealth

Our Supreme Dear Leader, President Obama, has really been ramping up the old class warfare rhetoric to the point that one would think he is first cousins with Robin Hood.  One of our blog
readers sent us the following synopsis on how this could possibly work. Doesn’t seem like it would do that much for us once you get the details down on paper. Tell me what you think.
Liberals want to redistribute the wealth. Well, let's break this down a little. If you go by the Forbes 500 list of the richest Americans and tally up their assets you get roughly $500 billion dollars. There are more than 300 million people in this country. So if you just stripped them of their wealth entirely and divided it equally among every American that would be a one-time distribution of $1,667. Of course, you'd need that $1,667 for food because there would no longer be any jobs

13 comments:

  1. This is fear mongering.

    Exxon is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer, while bilking Americans. GE is also subsidized. These are companies that are making billions, while famously paying no taxes. At the same time the rest of us are asked to bail out the big banks who gambled the taxpayers money away with the approval of W and Darth Cheney.

    No one is seriously considering confiscating the wealth of the forbes 500. The rich need to pay their fair share and they are not.

    Warren Buffet is right once again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This wasn’t intended to be fear mongering DeConstructor. I didn’t imply anyone was talking about confiscating the wealth of the Forbes 500 but when you look at the facts in dollars and cents you get the picture of how absurd the “tax the wealthy” political campaign cry you hear from the leftist politicians really is. Simply taxing the rich will not get our country back on track. We need to cut spending -------- DEEPLY!

      Delete
    2. Warren Buffet is a hypocrite!

      Delete
    3. Exxon is not heavily subsidized and they pay hundreds of millions in taxes every year. That is just another lie by our lying President. They are entitled to tax breaks that have been duly enacted as a part of the tax code, just like every other business. GE is subsidized, hence no taxes on $6 Billion, but that is all of their lobbyists buying votes of Obama supporters in Congress for so called "Green Energy." Other subsidies that you could object to: Sugar, ethanol, solar, wind, electric cars for rich people, all of which receive direct payments from the government. Now those I agree should be immediately ended.
      I do agree that the bank bailouts were stupid. "Too big to fail" means that they should be put down right now. But Obama continued withe the bailouts to GM and Chrysler all the while ignoring the law. I notice no objection to those.
      The rich needing to pay their fair share? Then you are obviously in favor of tax cuts for them. Since their share of the income tax burden is so high compared to the rest of the tax payers. But just out of curiosity DeConstruction, what would you say is a fair share? Is it less than you pay? If it's more, then how do you justify it except through theft?

      Delete
  2. It sure looks as if the fear of wealth confiscation was the implication of the post. Not only are these people not paying taxes legally, they are also taking wealth out of the country (Mitt has both Swiss accounts as well as accounts in the Caymen islands) This is in addition to our biggest companies moving the jobs overseas, to be done by slave type labor.

    They do need to pay more, and I would suggest that they pay the same amount in a special federal tax as they donate to their superpacs that OWN our elected representatives.

    A scenario like that would be a good step towards real campaign finance reform, which would raise revenue, cut spending, and generally get more Americans represented in the issues that concern them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let us not forget the mathematics of this as well...the President's own bean counters say this will raise $47 billion over ten years which is hardly going to make a noticeable dent in any part of the debt or the deficit for that matter. Less than $5 billion per year on a $1.2 trillion annual budget deficit...not exactly rocket science and that's just the revenue side. This doesn't even examine the economic impact of removing that money from the economy. The problem is not a lack of revenue, the problem is an excess of spending. I cannot for the life of me understand why everyone continues to believe this is more complicated than a household budget. It isn't. You cannot continue to spend more than you take in endlessly while putting the difference on a credit card and expect to get out of debt. This is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul and you can blame Clinton, or Bush, or oil companies or evil corporations or whatever or whomever you want, but it doesn't change the principle. Obama just doesn't get it and he is supposed to be the smartest person we've ever elected? Lord help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DeConstrucor you are welcome to post comments and your opinion all day long ............... but no more porn. That was uncalled for

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dang nub it did I miss some porn?

    Everybody should quit worrying about what some rich guy is earning and concentrate on his own future. Get a job, work hard, quit worrying about who is going to take care of you. Plan for your own retirement instead of depending on big brother. In this economy nothing is safe other than gold, silver, and ammunition. Some of the ammo I have stockpiled is worth nearly twice what I paid for it. Are you stock market types doing that well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't porn, it was a craigslist ad. Some may have called it artistic and of tasteful decorum.

      Delete
  6. Obviously some of you hillbillies don’t understand high finance LOL

    Everybody is always for increases in taxes that they don’t pay. I notice that not one person mentioned the 50% of Americans that pay no tax at all. How about making them pay at least 1% and end their subsidies so they feel they are part of this great nation instead of just being freeloaders?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, those that don't necessarily pay any income tax but work are paying FICA or the Social Security/Medicare taxes. While it looks to be about 6.5%, it's really 13% since the employer has to match it. But the difference is supposed to be that FICA is for the employee's benefit later in life, presuming they make it that far.
      The real problem with the assumption though, is that the funds from FICA have been comingled by Congress and spent already. It was supposed to be set aside, but instead is already spent on Solyndra and other boondoggles. So, we have no viable Social Security, an ever exploding federal deficit and everything that the government spends is determined to be a priority (like a GSA junket to Las Vegas) and therefore can't be cut. Not only can it not be cut, but they can't even stop the rate of growth.
      It's almost as if they want the system to fail. And according to Francis Pliven, they do.

      Delete
  7. Freeloaders, Hillbilly? How insensitive! Trying to shame these poor people into feeling obligated to give something back for their freebies? It seems to me they are simply following the lead of their Messiah Barack! He and Michelle lives the lap of luxury at the expense of the taxpayer, shouldn't we all get that type of treatment? I don't know about you, but being a freeloader seems a hell of lot better to me than continuing to work my ass off each day to pay for Barack and Michelle's vacations. So I'm voting for Obama! DeConstructor and I can go make porn, ahem, art together and you, Professor, RedneckJoe and Steve and everyone else can pay for it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to the democrats class war and racism is the root of all society's ills

    ReplyDelete