Wealth redistribution: Popular with South Dakotans

Dissing Obama’s supposed “income redistribution plan” is pretty popular in SD these days. What most here won’t admit or realise is that our state is on federal welfare and has been for some time.

Check THIS out for the numbers.

In 2005 (the most current year in the study), we got back$1.53 for every dollar we sent to the federal government.

In other words, the tax dollars of other states are being redistributed to fund our low tax lifestyle.

Many of you have seen the Johnson/Munson ad where Munson does everything but fellate Johnson for bringing in so much money for pet projects around SF. Rep. Herseth-Sandlin also mentions in her ads the money she’s helped to bring in while she’s been in congress. Why are we as frugal, up-by-the-bootstraps (whatever that means), God-fearing South Dakotans electing such welfare queens to office?

Could it be that deep down, we really like the idea of wealth redistribution? 


#1 l3wis on 10.28.08 at 11:48 am

I have often been puzzled why people would be against taxing the shit out of the rich and redistributing it to the middle-class? I’m all for it. I wish Obama would tax three times more then he is proposing.

#2 Anon on 10.28.08 at 12:05 pm

Because the rich already pay most of the tax burden. And they are the ones who provide the jobs and the investment in the economy.

Sounds like you need a handout of some sort, eh?

#3 Ghost of Dude on 10.28.08 at 12:14 pm

Rich states also seem to pay most of the tax burdon.
Any bets as to whether the richer states are “red” or “blue”?

#4 Ghost of Dude on 10.28.08 at 12:17 pm

Really, the problem lies with there not being enough tax brackets. There needs to be another one starting at about the $1million mark, and another at the $50 million mark.
Interestingly, the 50’s (our nation’s golden years) had the highest marginal tax rates of any peace time. The top rate was 94%.

#5 l3wis on 10.28.08 at 12:36 pm

People often become rich off of the backs of middle-class workers making them that money(they are not technically working for it-they are simply distributing more profit to themselves then to their workers).

It only makes sense they pay a majority of taxes to give back to the people who are making them that money.

#6 Anon on 10.28.08 at 1:25 pm

Spoken like a true idiot socialist. Sounds like you need to become a constituent of the Castro brothers. At least the weather’s nice.

The people who work for those mean nasty rich folks might not have a job otherwise. Nobody is forcing them to work for the mean nasty rich folks.

And if the mean nasty rich folks are taxed more, do you really think “the people” will get it? Nope. The extra costs will be passed on consumers (including the people who work for the mean nasty rich folks) and said people will probably lose said jobs.

Besides, $250,000 (the line in the sand for Obama) is a drop in the bucket when you consider the cost of living in some places.

#7 Ghost of Dude on 10.28.08 at 1:34 pm

The people who work for those mean nasty rich folks might not have a job otherwise. Nobody is forcing them to work for the mean nasty rich folks.

This is true. We’re free in this country to work for whomever we please – including ourselves.
That rich guy who owns the business didn’t neccesarily start out rich with 100 employees. He had to build his business to the point that he could hire people and spend his time on more productive activity. If he makes an average of $1000/hr while, say, aquiring new business and an average of $20/ hr doing office work, he should hire someone to do the office work for $20/hr. There are only so many hours in the day.
It takes years of hard work and a lot of risk to get to the point where you’re getting rich off of others’ efforts.

#8 l3wis on 10.28.08 at 1:34 pm

I’m glad you agree with me. It would just be better if those rich nasty people paid their employees more of their profit and pay themselves less, in turn they wouldn’t have to pay higher taxes because they would be paying their employees fairly.

We have many socialist programs in the US that work, and if we did not have them we would be in a heap of trouble (Social Security for instance).

So are you suggesting we get rid of all social programs? Medicare? Medicade?
VA Administration? The Military? Public Education? Bailout of Wall Street? Industrial complex? National Parks?

Which ones would you like to eliminate? We are partially a socialist country, and have been for a very long time. If you don’t like it, please leave.

#9 Angry Guy on 10.28.08 at 1:41 pm

Don’t give us that cost of living crap.
You should give Joe the Plubmer a call and have him clean all of the bull$hit out of your pipes. If the tax hike for Richie Rich forces him to lay off workers to compensate for his loss, those workers are better off not working for that particular capitalist douchebag.
Its the same stupid argument you neo-cons make when taxing the rich comes up. “People will lose their jobs.” Well no shit, idiot. It was this borrow to spend, capitalist mentality that got us here in the first place.

#10 Ghost of Dude on 10.28.08 at 1:59 pm

I’ve always thought having to pay a lot of taxes would be a good problem to have. It means you made more money.

#11 l3wis on 10.28.08 at 3:58 pm

I know, one of my wealthy Republican friends bitched to me about his property taxes (mind you, he lives in a very nice house, in a very nice neighborhood and all 4 of his kids go to public school). I told him, if he didn’t like it, move to a different neighborhood.

#12 Randall on 10.29.08 at 5:00 pm

The farmers in this state are some of the biggest hogs at the welfare trough – the fattest recipients of a “redistribute the wealth” program that’s been going on a long long time. Ticks me off when a millionaire farmer bitches about some poor person using food stamps.

#13 l3wis on 10.29.08 at 11:12 pm

I’ll agree with you partially. Small farmers reap very small benefits if any when it comes to subsidies. As you point out, the big farmers and big Agri-business such as bio-fuels and pesticide companies reap over 75% of the subsidies while small family farmers get all the guff about it.