Comments on: Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth http://votingtruth.com/redistribution-of-wealth/practical-application-of-redistribution-of-wealth/ Your source for truth in voting. Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:40:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: tyleram http://votingtruth.com/redistribution-of-wealth/practical-application-of-redistribution-of-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-9524 tyleram Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:07:07 +0000 http://votingtruth.com/?p=105#comment-9524 I found some interesting numbers at the tax foundation.org. The bottom 50% of income earners only pay 2.89% of the total tax burden. The effective tax rate is approximately 3%. Judging from your pathetic tip, I'll assume you are in the bottom 50% of that $10, your tax burden would be $3. (your server, since that $10 was most likely after tax income for you) According to your chart, SS: $.63, Nat. defense: $.57, medicare: $.42, income security: $.39, health: $.30, interest: $.27, education and social services: $.09, transportation: $.09, vet benefits: $.09, other: $.15. Considering this person is homeless, I'm not exactly sure what government money he is getting anyway. It was your $10, and you made a choice. I guess he got $10.09 total ($.09 social services and $10 from you?) Maybe health, and definitely nat. defense, too. Furthermore, your $10 was after taxes. Your server incurred a tax burden of 8% of your bill, whether he actually got 8% or not. So, his tax contribution to the homeless man may actually be more than the $3. Whether you gave it to the server or homeless man, the server was responsible for taxed income for YOUR lunch. He's not the one bitching about taxes. Maybe he thinks 3% is fair. And maybe he gives him $1 everyday. What makes you think $10 is what the service you received at lunch was worth anyway? That's what it was worth to you. 15% is an arbitrary number based on the 8% of sales. It is worth (could be) something else to your server, his employer, and other diners. Would you prefer going home and preparing the same meal for yourself? For most people that work, that is an impossibility. So I think that I can argue that his job makes your job possible, and vice versa. I think that is also a pretty good argument for wealth redistribution. Unless of course you would REALLY rather be self-sufficient and join the amish Community. I found some interesting numbers at the tax foundation.org. The bottom 50% of income earners only pay 2.89% of the total tax burden. The effective tax rate is approximately 3%. Judging from your pathetic tip, I’ll assume you are in the bottom 50%

of that $10, your tax burden would be $3. (your server, since that $10 was most likely after tax income for you) According to your chart,

SS: $.63, Nat. defense: $.57, medicare: $.42, income security: $.39,
health: $.30, interest: $.27, education and social services: $.09, transportation: $.09, vet benefits: $.09, other: $.15.

Considering this person is homeless, I’m not exactly sure what government money he is getting anyway. It was your $10, and you made a choice. I guess he got $10.09 total ($.09 social services and $10 from you?) Maybe health, and definitely nat. defense, too.

Furthermore, your $10 was after taxes. Your server incurred a tax burden of 8% of your bill, whether he actually got 8% or not. So, his tax contribution to the homeless man may actually be more than the $3. Whether you gave it to the server or homeless man, the server was responsible for taxed income for YOUR lunch. He’s not the one bitching about taxes. Maybe he thinks 3% is fair. And maybe he gives him $1 everyday.

What makes you think $10 is what the service you received at lunch was worth anyway? That’s what it was worth to you. 15% is an arbitrary number based on the 8% of sales. It is worth (could be) something else to your server, his employer, and other diners.

Would you prefer going home and preparing the same meal for yourself? For most people that work, that is an impossibility. So I think that I can argue that his job makes your job possible, and vice versa. I think that is also a pretty good argument for wealth redistribution. Unless of course you would REALLY rather be self-sufficient and join the amish Community.

]]>