(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

O/T Distribution -of-Wealth

A

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member
I've heard this so much during the recent debates,without being sarcastic , referring to your own calling such as, tractor owners farmers etc, How would you describe it.
 
Socialism. Doesn't matter if you are a farmer or stockbroker. America was founded as, and is suppose to be a capitalist country. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, and therefore UN-AMERICAN. Sorry for the rant but this whole re-distrabution idea really disturbs me.

Nate
 
You are correct about socialism. What we need to realize (or recognize) is that socialism does not work economically. Look at History. Unfortunatly, the last two presidents have grown government rather than reduce. This is also socialism. Also with socialism comes corruption in government. Or economic problems are because of socialism and globilization and both parties have given us that.
This is why everyone is falling for this "reform" stuff.
What scare me is one candidate answering a question by stating straight up that we need do redistribute the wealth. What need correcting is that most wealth is earned money and if you take my earned money, I have no interest in investing or working for more money (unless I can dontate to some senators in order to keep most of it). If you want to attack wealth, go after those wall street bonus amounts of 20, 50, 100 million a year plus (in addition to salary). Niether candidate is talking about that. Sorry for this rant.
 
The biggest thing I do not understand is the socialistic policies we are enacting. Yet, we
pump billions of dollars into Iraq to advance
democracy. We can not practice what we preach to others
 
If you ask me, I think Capitalism works well for redistribution of wealth.

If you want to get more wealth, be smarter and work harder than the other guy, and you get wealthier.
 
Sounds to me like external_link wants to be the next Hugo Chavez. He is just going to sell us socialism first.

Scarry part is most people don't see it coming.
 
Could be 2 things, in my opinion.
Take from those that have worked hard to get out of the lowest 2 classes and are living a comfertable, but not high life style, and use them dollars to improve the lifestyle of those that refuse to work hard or educate them selves to get out of the lowest 2 classes.

It may also mean, but I doubt it, that there will be some reassesment of tax obligations. Which I think would be a very high tax on very rich people that spend on a weeknight out what a low income person makes in a year. Lower income taxes on the middle class that have a net income of $30,000-$150,000 so they can spend more as consumers and also be able to save for retirement still live a modest life. Child support recieved would be taxed as income, child support payed would be deductable from earned income. Any welfare program income would have some tax % payable.

But then it could also be take from any one that has worked hard but isnt super rich and give it to those that refuse to improve their life. It may also be a way of reparation" or what ever it is that a few people are thinking will happen if we ever get a minority President. Hard to say. Would I like to get 2% of Warren Buffets or The Hiltons money, maybe, but I do know I wouldnt want my savings being dipped into to "spread" to people that refuse to earn a living. Dang, and i wanted to stay on topic today!
 
Capitalism is an economic driver, Socialism is a form which defines how government interacts with it"s citizens.

Take Britain for example, probably one of our most supportive Allies in the world having a capitalistic economy structured within a socialistic democracy!

If Socialism is going to define what is considered UN-AMERICAN behavior, then how do we explain anything that is supported and cosponsored through government for the benefit of it"s people.
 
Hmm, it keeps editing my posts but in a pure capitalist country, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer no matter how smart they are.

Besides, we all like socialist things like highways, and national defense. How would you like management and all aspects of national defense to go to the lowest bidder?
 
Ken, good point. defense and highways are definetly things that need to be government.

EVERYBODY gets richer in capitalist countries. Our standard of living here is higher becuase of capitalism, not govn't re-distrabution. We have different classes no doubt, but you think we have poverty here go to socialist/marxist countries like Cuba, North Korea, the former Soviet, ect, ect. I bet you'll find they are a disaster.

Nate
 
<a href="http://s200.photobucket.com/albums/aa5/jameslloydhowell/?action=view¤t=Willrogers.jpg" target="_blank">
Willrogers.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a> Will Rogers once said [b:654c4848f0][i:654c4848f0]"A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people."[/b:654c4848f0][/i:654c4848f0]

That is one reason why I enjoy this forum - reading the topics and associating with smarter people!

As a self-proclaimed NE Texas redneck, this is an extreme example of distribution of wealth.

I am physically able to work and mentally capable of performing on my job.

For the payment of my labor, I receive 10 antique JD tractors.

The U.S. ( United Socialists ) government requires me to give 3 antique JD tractors to pay my taxes.

My neighbor across the street is physically able to work and mentally capable of performing on some jobs, but chooses not to work.

The U.S. ( United Socialists ) government gives him 3 antique JD tractors.

As a farmer, I use the remaining 7 antique JD tractors to produce hay for additional income.

The U.S. ( United Socialists ) government requires me to give 3 bales of hay to pay my taxes.

The U.S. ( United Socialists ) government then gives him 3 bales of hay to feed his horses.

I am fat, dumb, and happy living the American dream.

My neighbor dislikes me because he thinks he is "entitled" to more than 3 antique JD tractors and 3 bales of hay for his horses.

<a href="http://s200.photobucket.com/albums/aa5/jameslloydhowell/?action=view¤t=Willrogers.jpg" target="_blank">
Willrogers.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a> Will Rogers also said [b:654c4848f0][i:654c4848f0]"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"[/b:654c4848f0][/i:654c4848f0]
 
A Scottish history professor named Alexander Tyler, at the University of Edinburgh, did extensive research into past forms of government, and made this observation in 1787: "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." I wonder how many external_link supporters really believe his "Barrack in Wonderland" economic plan, and how many have simply discovered the wisdom of Professor Tyler's statement?
 
There is really only two classes of people and it is not defined by wealth. Defining people by wealth only leads to jealousy.

1# positive thinkers.

2# negative thinkers.

positive thinkers figure out how to take care of them selves and others.

negative thinkers try to blame others for not being taken care of.
 
Now you know,there are only two kinds of workers. There are those that shower in the morning before they go to work and then there are those that shower after work. I was one of the latter.

steveormary
 
Don't worry about it, no candidate has ever kept a promise. Some go in and do worst than expected and some do better. Just have to wait and see.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how one can propose a TRILLION dollars in new spending and cut taxes for 95% of the citizens. If I recall, only about 70% pay taxes in the first place. I must have missed "fuzzy" math day in accounting and econ in college.

I'm also trying to figure out how so many can be for raising corporate taxes (I'm including any business under that term). I hear people talking about taxing businesses in almost vindictive terms. Does anyone really think businesses care? Corporate taxes are a pass through tax. Raise taxes on business, business has to raise prices to the consumer. Any tax increase on a business will eventually be paid for by the consumer because it is a cost of doing business.
 
I believe history will bestow the title of Socialist in Chief on nnalert President Bush.
His nationlizing of the Banking inustry eclipses any nnalert's efforts. Why do nnalert see welfare for the poor as so evil, yet welfare for giant corporations as wonderful?
 
I believe history will bestow the title of Socialist in Chief on nnalert President Bush.
His nationlizing of the Banking inustry eclipses any nnalert's efforts. Why do nnalert see welfare for the poor as so evil, yet welfare for giant corporations as wonderful?
 
James-

I don't think that's what he meant by redistribution of wealth. Your tractors and hay were income. He wants to give a fair share of your farm to the neighbor.
 
ALL of the crooks in Wash. DC have to promise you the moon to get you to vote for them. It is too bad that the truth wont be spoken--Such as, the government cant Give you anything unless it takes it from someone else because the government doesnt create anything.
 
For those of you who believe there is no followup on campaign promises remember, if Borak gets elected he'll have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Read to shove his socialistic policies through congress and down our throats...why should they care, their approval rating is 13% but those looking for government handouts (entitlements) will keep them and their sort in office. I believe we may be in for a rough 4 years ahead.

The sad thing is that no politician cares about the good of the whole, only in being re-elected.
 
Not to be too picky, but Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union were socialist in name only. They are/were totalitiarn dictatorships. They were communist in name only. When Lenin took power in Russia, his first victims after the royalty were the Socialists.
 
I'm gonna pass out cond*ms in front of the township hall on election day. Some of these people have no idea who they are getting in to bed with!
 
Need I remind you of Clintons first few months in office. "I've never worked so hard in my life as I have in the last two weeks,but I just can't find a way to give the middle class a tax cut". So he raised them instead.
 
I wish you nnalert would make up your mind. Am I rich,or am I a religious zealot? I need to know if I have to go to church or a board meeting?
 
You know all joking aside,after reading all of the replies,can socialism exist side by side with capitalism if capitalism isn't outlawed? The government is buying shares in certain banks,right? If there is a bank on the corner that you know is government owned and one on the other corner that you know isn't,I don't know about you,but my business is going to the one that isn't. If everybody does this,whether it's banking or any other business where there is a choice,can the government (partially) owned business stay in business and survive,or will competion eliminate them?
 
Germ, That is way above a lot of the peoples thinking power even though you are right on. The main media and politicians have ingrained into a large portion of the peoples heads that corporations are evil and must be punished with taxes not knowing they are the ones that will have to pay those taxes. Most of those people have no concept to what businesses are corporations.
Any tax you place on the auto industry you will pay when you buy a car. Any tax you put on big oil you will pay at the pump.
Asking for others to pay taxes will come from your pay check one way or the other. The more tax you place on businesses here will mean less American made products you will have to choose from in your stores.
It may seem hard to believe by some but it is just the way it is.
 
No, I have a good example. Conrail(now owned by NorflokSouthern and CSX) was a government consolidation of the Reading, Erie-Lackawanna,Penn central and some other rail roads. Most if not all were constantly Bankrupted. The government stepped in and took over and consolidated them in to Conrail and after it made two years of profit they sold the road into privet owner ship. So lets hope something similar with the Banks!!
 
Seems like I remember learning in school about something that I am certain is no longer taught today.

The Pilgrams originally practiced socialism, or more correctly, communism. Everyone worked their plots and pooled all that they produced together and then alotted, or "redistributed", back out to all evenly. I think this lasted only one or two years until they quickly realized many were not pulling their fair share for one reason or another and they were on the verge of starvation. Some were not able to produce as much as others, some were not willing, and the others that were did not wish to work to their potential as they would not benefit to a greater extent for their greater effort. All are examples of why socialism/communism does not work. There is no incentive for trying harder, working longer, doing your best. This was also demonstrated in the former Soviet Union. They were constantly stealing our ideas for weapon systems and other things because their scientists had no reason or incentive to excel, and they had no capitalists who would be rewarded for creating a better wiggit.

Human nature dictates these life truths. Perhaps in a perfect world, the Utopia many liberals think can exist, it would be possible for all to share equally in each other's productivity, but in the real world it is a farce.
 
Well....no. Joe Sixpack still pays for it, but not in the form of increased prices- he pays for it in lost jobs. Cost of goods remains the same...selling price is fixed by the market, and every competitor is trying to keep selling price down to gain market share- so, the only way to really make back the profit lost to taxes is to cut expenses- and PAYROLL is the largest controllable expense. 1st goes all overtime- next goes headcount. Joe Sixpack pays in JOBS.
 
My step father was born in the Crimea in Russia he left in 1918 his grand parents were promptly killed and there big farm was given to the peasants who worked for them.
I have a new Russian friend who put in my new ceilings in my old house, he came from the same place in Russia and is very glad to be here in America. When I first saw him he was wearing a t-shirt that said "Glad to be an American"
I think that about sums it up for me.
Walt

PS His wife made us a half gallon of Boursh it was great so I gave her a ton of Cow $hit. She was very happy.
 
You can only charge what the market will bear- and other than fuel, most businesses try to keep selling price DOWN in order to gain market share. To still make the profit, you cut EXPENSES- you send Sam Everyman home for keeps, and reduce payroll.

real life- I sent 32 home last week.
 
U.S. Tax System explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks
for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill
the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by
six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then
the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink
his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out
the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared
the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah,
that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too..
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! ''That's true!!' shouted
the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 
I might mention that the USA is not a "democracy". We are a "Republic"

True democracy's do not work. Too many spineless, ignorant folks, like the Hollywood elite.


Gene
 
Good thread here.
I've followed politics closely for over 20 years, (as well as Oliver and Massey Ferguson) and I'm impressed that some of the best opinion is on the tractor website.
Most of you people "get it".
Live long and prosper.
 
DickL and I know both own businesses and understand how things work. If you can cut labor without affecting sales and service, then you have inefficient labor.

Labor is more in line with volume. If you have 100 widgets sold this week and need 100 employees working a full week to deliver the widgets, you can not cut labor without affecting sales (you have to deliver 100 the widgets). If you can produce those 100 widgets with 80 employees, you have 20 dead beats on your payroll that need to find more suitable employement.

Same goes with reduced sales, if sales are dropping, either the sales force needs to work harder and make more sales at a profit, or the work force needs to be reduced to the appropriate level.

From what I recall, you have auto repair shops. I would toss out an educated guess that your volume is dropping during this slow down.
 
I am a dumb farmer, just ask my kids. Would someone or two please tell me why term limits to discourage professonal politicans(sptold you i am dumb) won't work?
 
Correct Germ, If I send people home my out put drops. I have to mark up parts to cover costs and the beans that Dixie eats which is not called costs by big brother when not a corporation. More taxes happens to be added costs. If I am not able to meet customers production needs because I do not have enough people they no longer are one of my customers. This is even a bigger concern in down times as my customers drop there inventory and want product in house closer to the time they will be out. Being out of product will mean they can not produce product for there customers.
Inventory is taxed in Ohio and to carry inventory not only ties up capital it is an added tax cost.
I spend most of my day making sure our customers will not have to shut down there lines. In close inventory times it means a higher cost in switching from job to job.
I can be running an 8 X 1 tire for customer A and customer C also needs 8 X 1 tires. Customer B calls and will be out of 8 X 2's and will have to shut down his production if I stay in and run customers C's 8 X 1's while they are in.

No way I can send any one home.
 
Hey Tom, have you ever had a poor person give you a job? You know damn well that it doesn't work that way, you give welfare to poor people so they can continue to stay in the same economic position, never have a reason to climb out and do something for themselves. Yet if you give a person with some motivation (those nasty old rich people) the money, which was thiers to begin with before the government took about 50 % of it, they will do something with it. And when they do something with it, it creates jobs for you and me. Its not at all welfare, its an investment that we will get back if we give to the ones who have some motivation and business sense.
 
Interesting concept, I would guess it more works like this:
First they get Joe Public to think that there's all these lazy, cheats defrauding the government, instead of the 1 or 2 percent like it might actually be.
Then you get a contractor to administer a program to to dish out benefits. He'll get your three tractors and two and a half bales to do this.
Then he gives the recipient 1/2 bale if they haven't made a few thousand in the last six months or don't own a dependable car that's worth too much. If they made too much they get a 1/4 bale.
Then the contractor gives the congress person one tractor and a bale for his straw bale house for a campaign contribution.

Seems like a simple solution to me. Have the minimum wage higher than welfare benefits and some medical thrown in. They could do this with corporate welfare, but since the corps would just take the money and not pay anything, and say nobody will do these jobs. It won't ever work.


Any way, I think you're just repeating news rhetoric.
 
Yes, and negative thinkers describe both of the leading candidates for President. You'll notice their campaign ads on TV talk about what their opponent is going to do or not do rather than what they themselves will do or not do! Until people can admit that both parties are broken we'll have far worse days on Main street and Wall street. Remember, both Barack external_link and John McCain supported that $700 billion bailout. I still don't understand it either. The taxpayers have to pay more because banks loaned too much, and to people who couldn't (or wouldn't) pay back? Its the peoples' fault banks didn't know what they were doing? Any other business I know of goes bankrupt when they do that...
 
It really is accurate, like I was telling Indiana the other day, though I would say that the rich man is arrogant if he take his money elsewhere. Obviously not all people who get by are rich. Some people might even prefer the rich man to not bother them. Alot of people don't like hearing bs from the rich or poor.
 
Never fear, McCain will make abortion illegal, close Guantanamo prison, lower taxes AND have a across-the board spending freeze, all while keeping our current law enforcement, schools, roads, etc. intact. Somehow I'm doubting he'll do ANY of this, but I can't justify voting for the other guy.

Coming at you from NE Ohio, where you can't be an independent.
 
I feel the same way you do. The lesser of 2 evils. Hard to believe this is the best that our country can come up with.

We're also neighbors.
 
WELL, I TELL YA WHAT- try to pass the additional expense on to the consumer and you'll have plenty of production over-run...and a lot of heads to send home.

Good luck gentlemen...you'll need it.
 
i guess the little 28 store, $78 million per year in sales operation that I run doesn't count as a business, fellas. excuse me.
 
Let's not forget, in addition to the un-American triad: Pelosi, Reid and external_link, Barry will get to appoint at least two abundant judges. Ginsburg and one other want to retire if Barry wins. This will give way too much power to the liberals, especially with the media aligned with them. They'll push the Fairness Doctrine to eliminate conservative radio because abundant radio can't make it. It could all be gone with a stroke of the pen. Look how close the 2nd Amendment vote cam to being over-ruled. Scary time ahead.

Larry in Michigan
 
You folks, and everone else, do have a choice: you could write in Ron Paul (as I did) or vote Libertarian (as I did for the rest of the ballot). I can hear it now: "I don't want to throw my vote away". Is voting for candidates/parties you don't support not "throwing your vote away"? Voting for the lessor of two evils is still evil.

P.S. In case some of you may be wondering, voting here in N.C. started yesterday (in most voting disticts).
 
I never said it didn't count and I knew you had multiple locations. Just reread what I said. If you have profitable work and you cut labor, you can't get the work done. If you can cut labor and still get the work done, your labor is inefficient. If you don't have work for your labor force, you have to cut labor, which might be what you are saying, and I totally agree with that.

I'd like to have you respond as to how you can eat tax increases. I'm not talking tax on profit, but tax on inventory, unemployment tax, workers' comp tax, property tax, license fees and the like.

I understand about running lean, but you can only eat so much before you run into the red and pass the increases off in higher prices.
 
Why was every one paying 4.00 per gallon for gas?

You see it does not make any difference using your logic. If I eat the tax I amount of business because I can not pay my bills. If I lay people off and do not make my shipping dates they buy from some one else and I will not be able to pay my bills and will go out of business. If I raise my prices because of increase taxes and my orders might go down for a while if my competition eats the added expense but when they go out of business because they can not pay there bill my orders will go back up.
Besides I do not have much competition in my quality range.
 
You can not compare my business type to yours. They are and can not be run with the same mind set. I am sure you are making the same decisions that your competition will make. Labor is one of your main expenses. Labor is not my biggest cost. My largest cost is material. One of my plastic materials has gone from .30 to 1.20 per pound with the price of crudes increasing over the past two years. I have had to increase my prices every other month for the last year. The same as my competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Opinions - Large auctions of tractors.
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
730virgil
7
YTSupport
New Forums again
Replies
13
Views
1K
cpratt
cpratt
J
Generator Grounding
Replies
18
Views
970
buickanddeere
B
J
CHOOSING WIRE SIZE AND WELDING
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
DoubleO7
DoubleO7
J
Speaking of 4patriot backup power
Replies
17
Views
1K
buickanddeere
B
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top