Browse By

Redistribution of Intelligence

Seen just down the street: A handmade yard sign reading, “Nobama. No redistribution of wealth.”

The sign is in front of a one-story house with about 1,200 square feet on a small plot of land.

Why does a person who doesn’t make much money in the first place worry about redistribution of wealth? Just who does the owner of that house think that Barack Obama would redistribute his wealth to?

11 thoughts on “Redistribution of Intelligence”

  1. tom says:

    This is what i don’t get – all these “Joe the Plumber” people who don’t make a lot of money -think Obama will take more away from them, when in fact it’s proposed to go the other way around!
    McCain is addressing his rich “friends” when he’s talking about spreading the wealth around.

    It’s just another example of the stupidity of the greed-driven, isolationist, me-first, distracted, not well read, American voter.

  2. Jim says:

    It’s a cognitive bias people have. We may not be rich now, but we have dreams of our ship coming in, and when it does boy oh boy do we not want anyone “taking it away.”

  3. lol says:

    And ironically I believe the stat was that the median income in America is what, 30k/year, and they don’t even realize that the tax breaks to the rich are what keeps the rich staying rich and expanding their businesses while the small people work 12 hrs per day to barely feed their family like idiots. Obama says I’LL SHARE THAT MONEY WITH YOU, they say WE’RE REAL AMERICANS. Yeah!!

  4. Billy Buerger says:

    Just because someone would benefit from something doesn’t mean they have to agree with the principle. Someone may not nor even make 250k a year. But they could still agree with the idea that those who do should get to keep their money.

    That said, I’m of the mind set that the more money you make, the more people it took for you to get that money and the more of it should go back into the community.

  5. Jim says:

    Yep, Billy, I agree with you. The Securities and Exchange Commission, supported by your tax dollars, is for the help of people who have wealth. The roads, supported by your tax dollars, are utilized more by a big business owner than by someone earning $30,000. Collegiate education is in large part a socialization of corporate training expense. Yes, an individual person gets to have a skilled job as a result, and that is to their individual benefit, but a corporation gets a skilled worker as a result, and the corporation gets more value out of the exchange than the worker (because that’s how profit happens). Those are just a few examples of significant government investment in the interest of building and maintaining the wealth of the wealthy.

  6. DARK ENERGY says:



  7. kevin says:

    psst… hes gonna take your house and give it to the blacks…or the mexicans or the sweedes .. you know…those other guys…

  8. Tom says:

    i saw a great juxtaposition of campaign signs with going out of business signs being intermingled (since the campaign signs were placed in front of a defunct store):

    McCain/Palin (and a bunch of local Republicans) followed by bright yellow and red “Everything Must Go!”

    i thought it was amusing.

  9. SpudBreau says:

    I laugh when I see people like “lol” give points against their own argument:
    “….tax breaks to the rich are what keeps the rich staying rich and expanding their businesses…”

    And those businesses employ whom again?

    I don’t really have any problem with Obama’s “tax” plan. (doesn’t Congress still actually create laws anyway?) It’s all just a matter of adjustment by degrees. The bottom 50% of the population only pay something like 10-15% of all the taxes in the nation, so cutting their tax rate by 20% is only gonna reduce the total tax intake like 2-3%. And raising it on the top 1% by only 3% (35 to 38) is going to have a huge offset to them.

    But the bottom line for those who cry “Welfare! Socialism!” is that we have it already. The poor already receive far more in government services than they earn by paying taxes. We already take from the rich and give to the poor in huge amounts. Tweaking it a few points here and there doesn’t really amount to much.

    My real concern twofold: First, where is the logic in this economically? If the long-term position we want the lowest-income citizenry to be in is working and being self-supporting and successful, then how does this achieve that goal? If all we want to do is squeeze the rich a little more and give that money to the poor for food, clothing, heat, etc, then, let’s just admit that and do it. Like agreeing to take in your sick uncle and paying for him forever.

    You give everyone another $1000 check from the gov’mint and what do they do with it? Save it? pay off bills? Hire someone else? Buy a new $799 digital flatscreen TV because of the digital switchover next year? What? Where’s the data to support this?

    “lol” makes the silly remark that the rich might “expand their businesses” Sounds like an argument for “supply-side economics”, which I sure is not what they intended, but out of the mouths of babes….

    The other issue with this is the arbitrary nature of $250K. That’s a fair amount of income for a single family, to be sure, but not much for a small business. I’ve seen bad numbers twisted by both sides in attempts to either discount or justify small business, but the reality is that neither McCain nor Obama can show real hard accurate numbers that can predict what will happen with more taxes on small business and the subsequent job effect. Obviously if you lose jobs, you are hurting the poor even worse, and I think having a job is a better situation than receiving the same income amount from governmental redistribution. (if you want to argue that, fine)

    The second issue is how much faith I have in Obama’s commitment to his cause. There’s a great story in from last fall. Interestingly, the big CEOs that we all like to sh_it on are actually far “poorer” (hey, it’s all relative) than the Wall Street hedge fund managers.

    It’s something like the top 25 hedge fund managers (who are at the very top of that top 1% of taxpayers) earn more than the pay of all the Fortune 500 CEOs COMBINED. Now that’s mad money.

    Now the hedge fund managers pay is treated as a capital gain, not ordinary income, so today, their tax rate is 15%. I think it is highly unusual that Obama at one time was proposing the capital gains tax be raised to 28%, an almost doubling, but now is suggesting a more modest increase to only 20%. That will save those hedge fund managers a whole lot more money.

    The interesting coincidence is that a lot of money from the hedge boyz have been donated to the Democratic Party (2:1). Getting the picture now? Follow the money, kids. You suck up to who’s juicing you the best.

    If you’re smart and invest in your future with a 401K, then lower capital gains taxes will help little guys too, so every cloud has a silver lining. And of course, those investment guys won’t all move their money and jobs offshore as much. So the end result is who knows.

    But I think the real story is Obama backing away from the higher capital gains after getting party pressure. Okay, he’s not the first person to cave to wealthy special interests. Or the last. But he’s not all I expect him to be.

  10. lol says:

    The jobs go to the Indians and the Chinese buddy. tl, wr

  11. SpudBreau says:

    Very thoughtful reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!