I wasn't clear. I knew the general definition. I'm asking how BGPers use it. I see it a lot. I am looking to see policies that exemplify it . I'm guessing TANF isn't what BGPers are referring to.

 

I don't think that's going to be a particularly fruitful use of your time. Any examination of typical Democratic principles over the last 80 years would back up the notion that they tend to support redistributive programs. It's then that a problem emerges...

 

Those who tend to vote Democrat would say "Of course he supports those programs, they are fundamental to modern civilization and and far from benefiting only those receiving payments, are useful to every member of American society both directly and indirectly, reducing crime, driving up demand and helping the children of unemployed parents."

 

Those who tend not to vote Democrat would say "Of course he supports those programs, he refuses to acknowledge a fundamental truth of economics that a dollar taken in and spent by the government can be spent far more efficiently in the private sector, a private sector that can then create the kinds of jobs that would allow the people currently relying on these programs to get a job and provide for themselves and their families at a much higher level than these programs ever could."

 

....

 

Nah, I'm just kidding.

 

Democrats would say "Of course he supports these programs, somebody has to take care of all the people those corporate Republican hatemongers don't care about."

 

Republicans would say "Of course he supports these programs, he's a socialist who loves wealth redistribution and hates Jesus."

Ole Mitt believes in Wealth Distribution but to the Upper 1%. :ylsuper:

Exactly what I was looking for.

 

Re: Solynda et al. Do you believe no tax dollars should be used for funding new energy sources? Let's take Solyndra out and just talk about the concept.

 

I have serious issue when government tries to jump start a market. As we have now seen. Rarely, almost universally it does not work.

 

If there is market for a product AND access to capital to go after than market then creative businesses or VC groups will go after it.

 

If the cost of heating oil, coal, natural gas and electricity all double or triple - there will be a market and creative people will attack it with solar panels and wind machines.

 

I actually believe that some of the EPA efforts against coal and coal fired plants are to do what I show above - drive up prices (artificially) of current technology energy to make the 'green energy' more desirable and economically viable. But that is such insane logic. If traditional energy is cheap - so be it. BTW - that is the same thing with 'Carbon credits' only worse.

FDR defined it best when he talked about how Social Security work.

 

He said it should not be more dole. Dole was the term for government driven redistribution back then.

 

His definition still holds true today. The redistribution (dole) is higher GENERAL taxes used to pay for the dole. His 1935 address to Congress was specific on this.

 

So when the GENERAL tax fund is used to dole out goodies to others its a redistribution policy.

 

 

Who got dole under Obama?

 

- UAW when it was given 1/2 of GM - at taxpayer expense.

- Green companies who had shaky or outright corrupt business plans - Solyndra and numerous others.

- State union workers under the stimulus plan. Much of the stimulus when to states to pay workers they would have needed to lay off.

 

Taxes that are targeted to meet specific needs is not redistribution. Gasoline taxes - high as they are - are needed to pay for roads and infrastructure. Social Security is not perfect but it was design to be self funding.

 

Taxes are supposed to fund the government - for what it is defined CONSTITUTIONALLY to do. Redistribution or dole turns the government into Santa Claus. While it is neat to believe in him though....he does not exist. And the Beltway Santa is out of money to just sprinkle around. As we see with GM, as we see with Solyndra redistribution by the government is almost a universal failure.

A concept that many on here do not understand.

A concept that many on here do not understand.

 

I don't think a lack of understanding has anything to do with it.

I'll ask again. Can someone define it or tell me policies that foster it?

 

 

I guess theoretically a progressive income tax system is a redistributive policy in that it increases the marginal tax rate (as a percentage) as income increases. In that case, higher earners are paying a higher percentage of their income at the benefit of lower earners who will pay a lesser marginal tax rate (or no taxes at all or possibly negative taxes with refundable tax credits). Saying that, I don't have a problem is progressive taxes so long is the progression is reasonable.

Exactly what I was looking for.

 

Re: Solynda et al. Do you believe no tax dollars should be used for funding new energy sources? Let's take Solyndra out and just talk about the concept.

 

No actuall dollars should be given, but tax breaks for research would be OK, as it is their money and not the taxpayers. Products that people want will produce and earn money on their own. Products that people are not interested in should fade off into the sunset without wasting taxpayers money.

Hail Mary time with 14 year old videos. 14 years ago Mitt Romney was a pro-choice moderate to liberal governor who still liked universal coverage with a mandate.

 

Hail Mary? Look this is who Barry, I mean, Barack Obama is, he is a believer in the "fair share" or wealth redistribution. Why do Obama supports run from the very fabric of Obamaism? If you support him you support wealth redistribution, or as he likes to say, a larger middle class, he is an extreme left winger, quit running from it and own it.

 

But speaking of hail marys, how about a six month old video surfaces right when the president's administration is tripping all over themselves lying while covering up the botched policy in the Middle East. Looks to me like B.O. took a page right out of the Bill Clinton playbook. When the heat is on distract and give your media friend something to run with. Obama uses videos, Clinton used Tomahawk Missles.

No actuall dollars should be given, but tax breaks for research would be OK, as it is their money and not the taxpayers. Products that people want will produce and earn money on their own. Products that people are not interested in should fade off into the sunset without wasting taxpayers money.

 

I've got no argument for that. However, isn't a tax break giving them money?

I've got no argument for that. However, isn't a tax break giving them money?

 

Is stealing less being more honest?

I've got no argument for that. However, isn't a tax break giving them money?

 

No. They use their own money, repeat, their own money and then receive a tax write off.

Liberals use double speak like this to try to fool those who do not pay close attention to detail.

Only PC talk sees someone who uses their own money and receive a tax break as being given government money.

I guess that is how Obama sees it, all money belongs to the government, not to the person who earned it.

No. They use their own money, repeat, their own money and then receive a tax write off.

Liberals use double speak like this to try to fool those who do not pay close attention to detail.

Only PC talk sees someone who uses their own money and receive a tax break as being given government money.

I guess that is how Obama sees it, all money belongs to the government, not to the person who earned it.

 

Actually I am a liberal who is a big supporter of tax incentives, if there is some in lieu of payments to continue to help fund schools and fire and police protection. Incentives are monies that the state/federal govt may not had anyway.

I guess theoretically a progressive income tax system is a redistributive policy in that it increases the marginal tax rate (as a percentage) as income increases. In that case, higher earners are paying a higher percentage of their income at the benefit of lower earners who will pay a lesser marginal tax rate (or no taxes at all or possibly negative taxes with refundable tax credits). Saying that, I don't have a problem is progressive taxes so long is the progression is reasonable.

 

That was always my (admittedly limited) understanding.

Ole Mitt believes in Wealth Distribution but to the Upper 1%. :ylsuper:

They do not get "wealth distributed" to them, they create it.

Edited September 20, 201214 yr by mcpapa

I've got no argument for that. However, isn't a tax break giving them money?

If allowing a person/company to keep more of their money is the same thing as giving them money then I guess it is.