Tax the rich and give to the poor?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Well can I class myself as involuntarily unemployed because I can't get that £30k a year job I want?

That's why I mentioned the temp jobs, it's amazing how hard it is to get a bad job when you have good experience and qualifications. They know you'll leave the moment something good comes up.

[Solly]

That's surprising for temporary positions, though. I'll see what difficulty I have this summer, as I'm aiming to work for a few months while living at home and searching for a graduate position anywhere in the country.

Still I suppose it doesn't really make sense to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary as if it were black-and-white.

You can make models to show that if you take the labour force as a whole, it voluntarily chooses a level of unemployment, or something like that (still revising )..

[MikeH]

It is. There are an abundance of temps in Reading though. My Dad struggles because of his age.

I guess voluntary vs involuntary in an economic sense doesn't count individuals. There'll always be people who are unemployed and between jobs etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Well Mike, I expect to be writing an exam answer in 4 hours time about how there is no involuntary unemployment

You mean like getting fired and stuff?

[mrmitchell]

Instead you sit in your trailers,

It's a mobile home.

[Sava]

This isn't income distribution... it's simply taxing the rich more than the poor.

It's called progressive taxation Dissident... it's NOT income distribution.

[MrFun]

Re: Tax the rich and give to the poor?

Originally posted by Dissident
Yes it has come to American shores. Specifically New Jersey.

The governor wants to increase taxes on those who make over $500,000 a year and send this money for property tax breaks for the rest of the population.

I try to sympathize with the poor CEO who has to get by in life on only $800,000 a year, but for some callous reason, I just can't.

[Paddy]

tax them yes, and then use the money to help the poor

do not waste it on helping another politican travel

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Jaguar
wohoo! Reward the lazy!

Not punishing != Rewarding

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
For us, yes, because we have catastrophic health care coverage. So anything above $2500 is paid for by insurance. And we wait only a week at most.

I have no insurance.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MikeH


Right... but per year or per illness?

How much does good insurance cost? ie. Whatever I have I go and get treated and don't pay any more.

60 or so a month

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

poor insurance is roulghy 40 a month

of course, all insurance has copays (on the order of 15) and deductables (on the order of a couple hundred)

Jon Miller

[Impaler[WrG]]

As for the original premise of this thread, the Robin Hood taxation of the Rich for the purposes of redistribution through tax reduction or funding of social program for the poor.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, we (in the US) are living under a REGRESSIVE tax system that maschurades as a Progressive one. The Rich pay as a % of their total Income LESS then the lowest working class individuals. Federal income (or should I say WAGE taxes because thats whats taxed) is infact progressive. But EVERY other tax or fee (of which their are thousands) is highly regresive. Add ontop of that the amount of cheating the wealthy do and any Progressivness is gone.

A federal Flat Tax would not be a flat tax it would be a incresse in the Regressivness of the total tax burden.

Lets atleast have a clear picture of the real situation before we start talking about what it should or shouldnt be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Regressive means the poor pay more as a percentage. I don't know of any tax in which people who make less than x pay a higher percentage than those who make over x. In essense all sales tax, or user fees are FLAT, ie, not regressive.

A federal Flat Tax would not be a flat tax it would be a incresse in the Regressivness of the total tax burden.

Whether tax rates are progressive or regressive are not measured in total tax burden . It is measured on the amount of tax to be paid. The flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive and calling it regressive is simply another propaganda trick.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
This isn't income distribution... it's simply taxing the rich more than the poor.

It's called progressive taxation Dissident... it's NOT income distribution.

everyone @ sava