It's an issue that must be accounted for via taxation. Otherwise, the aristocracy that exists in this country will become even more insulated from the influence of the public. All you have to do is look at the Third World for how this occurs when the rich have free reign and pay very little in taxes.mikkel wrote:
That's an issue with democracy, not with tax code.Turquoise wrote:
You seem to care more about what each person pays and its fairness without looking at the unfairness of how the wealthy obviously have more political influence than you or me.
That's absurd. Tax income to keep people from gaining influence? What's next, a tax on charisma? A tax on popularity?Turquoise wrote:
It's an issue that must be accounted for via taxation. Otherwise, the aristocracy that exists in this country will become even more insulated from the influence of the public. All you have to do is look at the Third World for how this occurs when the rich have free reign and pay very little in taxes.mikkel wrote:
That's an issue with democracy, not with tax code.Turquoise wrote:
You seem to care more about what each person pays and its fairness without looking at the unfairness of how the wealthy obviously have more political influence than you or me.
What's absurd is your defense of democracy while simultaneously defending what subverts it -- the influence that the wealthy gain over the public.mikkel wrote:
That's absurd. Tax income to keep people from gaining influence? What's next, a tax on charisma? A tax on popularity?Turquoise wrote:
It's an issue that must be accounted for via taxation. Otherwise, the aristocracy that exists in this country will become even more insulated from the influence of the public. All you have to do is look at the Third World for how this occurs when the rich have free reign and pay very little in taxes.mikkel wrote:
That's an issue with democracy, not with tax code.
You are twisting your own words.. I don't know if it's intentional or not. You are supposedly wanting to focus on the big picture. One mans experience is not relevant in a population well over 300 million.Turquoise wrote:
Personal experience can be equally as relevant as statistics in a discussion such as this. You're intentionally trying to twist my words here.Kmarion wrote:
I am in fact looking at the big picture. Who is the one bringing their own personal experience into the discussion?And you still fail to realize that 10% of what I make is more important to my wellbeing than 10% of what Bill Gates makes. We have a graduated income tax scale just like a lot of the rest of the world for the same reason: because the rich can afford to pay more.Kmarion wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that the tax code is broken. I want the same relative payments across all income levels. If it hurt the rich, it hurts the rich.. if "working class" people need o finally start anteing up.. then so be it.
You seem to care more about what each person pays and its fairness without looking at the unfairness of how the wealthy obviously have more political influence than you or me.
When life is "fair" overall, then we'll talk about fairness. Until then, it is irrelevant to this discussion.
I understand and realize exactly what you are saying. What is fair is paying a relative amount. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not even saying "lets be fair". The fact is the wealthiest are already paying WELL over their relative dues as a percent when compared to you. You are essentially saying that because people are way more successful than you they should have to make up for your failure to contribute.
I love the fact that you used Bill Gates. He's a perfect example of someone who volunteers his time and money to help... despite having to pay your share of taxes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I haven't been defending democracy in this thread. On the contrary, I've explicity criticised it, specifically because it can be subverted in this manner. Wealth isn't the problem. The political system is.Turquoise wrote:
What's absurd is your defense of democracy while simultaneously defending what subverts it -- the influence that the wealthy gain over the public.mikkel wrote:
That's absurd. Tax income to keep people from gaining influence? What's next, a tax on charisma? A tax on popularity?Turquoise wrote:
It's an issue that must be accounted for via taxation. Otherwise, the aristocracy that exists in this country will become even more insulated from the influence of the public. All you have to do is look at the Third World for how this occurs when the rich have free reign and pay very little in taxes.
Again, fairness is relative. Do you believe that the amount that Bill Gates is paying has in any way compromised his ability to wield infinitely more influence than you? If not, then I do not see it as "unfair" that he be taxed more than me. You see it as unfair because you are limiting your view of this to mathematics. It's a lot more complicated than that.Kmarion wrote:
You are twisting your own words.. I don't know if it's intentional or not. You are supposedly wanting to focus on the big picture. One mans experience is not relevant in a population well over 300 million.
I understand and realize exactly what you are saying. What is fair is paying a relative amount. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not even saying "lets be fair". The fact is the wealthiest are already paying WELL over their relative dues as a percent when compared to you. You are essentially saying that because people are way more successful than you they should have to make up for your failure to contribute.
I love the fact that you used Bill Gates. He's a perfect example of someone who volunteers his time and money to help... despite having to pay your share of taxes.
What do you suggest as a replacement?mikkel wrote:
I haven't been defending democracy in this thread. On the contrary, I've explicity criticised it, specifically because it can be subverted in this manner. Wealth isn't the problem. The political system is.Turquoise wrote:
What's absurd is your defense of democracy while simultaneously defending what subverts it -- the influence that the wealthy gain over the public.mikkel wrote:
That's absurd. Tax income to keep people from gaining influence? What's next, a tax on charisma? A tax on popularity?
Pretty much my view on in. Sure, unemployment is super high and companies can't afford to bring on more workers but goddamit, they can pay moar!Kmarion wrote:
Right, but Taxing corporations (aka employers) into submission is NOT the way to fix this. The likely result is more wealth disparity.
Look at the OP chart and ask your self, Why as a business would you want to operate in the states?
Shall we just make it so that only the top 5 percent pay taxes?Turquoise wrote:
Which is exactly why I said we should lower corporate tax but raise personal taxes.Kmarion wrote:
Right, but Taxing corporations (aka employers) into submission is NOT the way to fix this. The likely result is more wealth disparity.Turquoise wrote:
Wealth disparity is what terrifies people with foresight.
The solution is related to lowering the cost to operate in the states.. employ more people at home and start being a nation of producers again.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sweeping changes to a system that has proven itself to be thoroughly corruptible. You can't fix a broken spine by rounding up the rich and making them pay for a band-aid.Turquoise wrote:
What do you suggest as a replacement?mikkel wrote:
I haven't been defending democracy in this thread. On the contrary, I've explicity criticised it, specifically because it can be subverted in this manner. Wealth isn't the problem. The political system is.Turquoise wrote:
What's absurd is your defense of democracy while simultaneously defending what subverts it -- the influence that the wealthy gain over the public.
This taxation debate only diverts attention away from a broken system.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-26 10:27:28)
The cost of production mostly applies to the costs paid by business, not the business owners. If corporate taxes are decreased while personal taxes are increased among the wealthy, there is an incentive for reinvestment rather than hoarding the wealth in personal finances.Kmarion wrote:
Shall we just make it so that only the top 5 percent pay taxes?Turquoise wrote:
Which is exactly why I said we should lower corporate tax but raise personal taxes.Kmarion wrote:
Right, but Taxing corporations (aka employers) into submission is NOT the way to fix this. The likely result is more wealth disparity.
The solution is related to lowering the cost to operate in the states.. employ more people at home and start being a nation of producers again.
The cost of production is considerably less when corporate taxes are low. Personal taxes have far less of an effect on the cost of doing business.
I would agree that it's broken, but elaborate on what specific reforms you suggest.mikkel wrote:
Sweeping changes to a system that has proven itself to be thoroughly corruptible. You can't fix a broken spine by rounding up the rich and making them pay for a band-aid.Turquoise wrote:
What do you suggest as a replacement?mikkel wrote:
I haven't been defending democracy in this thread. On the contrary, I've explicity criticised it, specifically because it can be subverted in this manner. Wealth isn't the problem. The political system is.
This taxation debate only diverts attention away from a broken system.
Who are you to judge? Do you understand that the money he spends.. you know the money HE made is reinvested into the economy? That is how you redistribute wealth without having the bureaucrats in Washington steal it from you. What gives you the right to take more, when he is already paying a hell of a lot more relative to income?Turquoise wrote:
Again, fairness is relative. Do you believe that the amount that Bill Gates is paying has in any way compromised his ability to wield infinitely more influence than you? If not, then I do not see it as "unfair" that he be taxed more than me. You see it as unfair because you are limiting your view of this to mathematics. It's a lot more complicated than that.Kmarion wrote:
You are twisting your own words.. I don't know if it's intentional or not. You are supposedly wanting to focus on the big picture. One mans experience is not relevant in a population well over 300 million.
I understand and realize exactly what you are saying. What is fair is paying a relative amount. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not even saying "lets be fair". The fact is the wealthiest are already paying WELL over their relative dues as a percent when compared to you. You are essentially saying that because people are way more successful than you they should have to make up for your failure to contribute.
I love the fact that you used Bill Gates. He's a perfect example of someone who volunteers his time and money to help... despite having to pay your share of taxes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You are creating a situation that makes it more economically feasible to not be successful. Failure will reward you more than success.Turquoise wrote:
The cost of production mostly applies to the costs paid by business, not the business owners. If corporate taxes are decreased while personal taxes are increased among the wealthy, there is an incentive for reinvestment rather than hoarding the wealth in personal finances.Kmarion wrote:
Shall we just make it so that only the top 5 percent pay taxes?Turquoise wrote:
Which is exactly why I said we should lower corporate tax but raise personal taxes.
The solution is related to lowering the cost to operate in the states.. employ more people at home and start being a nation of producers again.
The cost of production is considerably less when corporate taxes are low. Personal taxes have far less of an effect on the cost of doing business.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I have no more right to take his wealth than he has to wield more influence. Therefore, I do not see my suggestion as overstepping my bounds anymore than he has.Kmarion wrote:
Who are you to judge? Do you understand that the money he spends.. you know the money HE made is reinvested into the economy? That is how you redistribute wealth without having the bureaucrats in Washington steal it from you. What gives you the right to take more, when he is already paying a hell of a lot more relative to income?Turquoise wrote:
Again, fairness is relative. Do you believe that the amount that Bill Gates is paying has in any way compromised his ability to wield infinitely more influence than you? If not, then I do not see it as "unfair" that he be taxed more than me. You see it as unfair because you are limiting your view of this to mathematics. It's a lot more complicated than that.Kmarion wrote:
You are twisting your own words.. I don't know if it's intentional or not. You are supposedly wanting to focus on the big picture. One mans experience is not relevant in a population well over 300 million.
I understand and realize exactly what you are saying. What is fair is paying a relative amount. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not even saying "lets be fair". The fact is the wealthiest are already paying WELL over their relative dues as a percent when compared to you. You are essentially saying that because people are way more successful than you they should have to make up for your failure to contribute.
I love the fact that you used Bill Gates. He's a perfect example of someone who volunteers his time and money to help... despite having to pay your share of taxes.
The quickest way to make sure wealth is reinvested is to raise personal taxes while lowering corporate taxes, as I said above.
Norway has disproven that. So have many other countries (like basically all of the ones on Harmor's chart).Kmarion wrote:
You are creating a situation that makes it more economically feasible to not be successful. Failure will reward you more than success.Turquoise wrote:
The cost of production mostly applies to the costs paid by business, not the business owners. If corporate taxes are decreased while personal taxes are increased among the wealthy, there is an incentive for reinvestment rather than hoarding the wealth in personal finances.Kmarion wrote:
Shall we just make it so that only the top 5 percent pay taxes?
The solution is related to lowering the cost to operate in the states.. employ more people at home and start being a nation of producers again.
The cost of production is considerably less when corporate taxes are low. Personal taxes have far less of an effect on the cost of doing business.
If you expect me to spell out a comprehensive list of all of the changes that are needed, then you're going to be disappointed. What won't work is punishing a subset of the population in order to treat a symptom that would disappear on its own when the disease is cured. When you start taxing people for reasons beyond funding the government, that's when you have a corrupt system.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that it's broken, but elaborate on what specific reforms you suggest.mikkel wrote:
Sweeping changes to a system that has proven itself to be thoroughly corruptible. You can't fix a broken spine by rounding up the rich and making them pay for a band-aid.Turquoise wrote:
What do you suggest as a replacement?
This taxation debate only diverts attention away from a broken system.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-26 10:35:39)
I would argue that the concern for "punishing success" is greatly outweighed by the concerns of lobbyism. Right now, we have a system that makes it easier to wield undue influence in government precisely because of our relatively low taxes among the rich. Lobbyism is less of a problem in countries with higher personal taxes.mikkel wrote:
If you expect me to spell out a comprehensive of all of the changes that are needed, then you're going to be disappointed. What won't work is punishing a subset of the population in order to treat a symptom that would disappear on its own when the disease is cured. When you start taxing people for reasons beyond funding the government, that's when you have a corrupt system.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that it's broken, but elaborate on what specific reforms you suggest.mikkel wrote:
Sweeping changes to a system that has proven itself to be thoroughly corruptible. You can't fix a broken spine by rounding up the rich and making them pay for a band-aid.
This taxation debate only diverts attention away from a broken system.
The purpose of taxation is still to fund the government, not to attempt to patch its weaknesses.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that the concern for "punishing success" is greatly outweighed by the concerns of lobbyism. Right now, we have a system that makes it easier to wield undue influence in government precisely because of our relatively low taxes among the rich. Lobbyism is less of a problem in countries with higher personal taxes.mikkel wrote:
If you expect me to spell out a comprehensive of all of the changes that are needed, then you're going to be disappointed. What won't work is punishing a subset of the population in order to treat a symptom that would disappear on its own when the disease is cured. When you start taxing people for reasons beyond funding the government, that's when you have a corrupt system.Turquoise wrote:
I would agree that it's broken, but elaborate on what specific reforms you suggest.
A more important question; when you factor in all the various gas tax, sales tax, property tax, fees for using state parks and federal and state income taxes, how many hours per day does the government take from you?
25%? Half? 3/4?
25%? Half? 3/4?
Yielding his influence? He is specifically targeted because folks like you see his income as evil. This is despite having made it all in a system that gives you the same opportunity.Turquoise wrote:
I have no more right to take his wealth than he has to wield more influence. Therefore, I do not see my suggestion as overstepping my bounds anymore than he has.Kmarion wrote:
Who are you to judge? Do you understand that the money he spends.. you know the money HE made is reinvested into the economy? That is how you redistribute wealth without having the bureaucrats in Washington steal it from you. What gives you the right to take more, when he is already paying a hell of a lot more relative to income?Turquoise wrote:
Again, fairness is relative. Do you believe that the amount that Bill Gates is paying has in any way compromised his ability to wield infinitely more influence than you? If not, then I do not see it as "unfair" that he be taxed more than me. You see it as unfair because you are limiting your view of this to mathematics. It's a lot more complicated than that.
The quickest way to make sure wealth is reinvested is to raise personal taxes while lowering corporate taxes, as I said above.
Who the hell said we should be doing "the quickest way". We should be striving to find what is fair, and what is the most efficient way. A third party coming in and picking your pocket and then deciding what they feel is best is not right. Especially when you just claimed that they are subjected to being influenced by other parties.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Originally yes... However, ever since the New Deal, the government's mandate has changed. It changed even more radically in Europe.mikkel wrote:
The purpose of taxation is still to fund the government, not to attempt to patch its weaknesses.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that the concern for "punishing success" is greatly outweighed by the concerns of lobbyism. Right now, we have a system that makes it easier to wield undue influence in government precisely because of our relatively low taxes among the rich. Lobbyism is less of a problem in countries with higher personal taxes.mikkel wrote:
If you expect me to spell out a comprehensive of all of the changes that are needed, then you're going to be disappointed. What won't work is punishing a subset of the population in order to treat a symptom that would disappear on its own when the disease is cured. When you start taxing people for reasons beyond funding the government, that's when you have a corrupt system.
While I do not support all of the social engineering that the Left supports (like affirmative action and the CRA), I do support a certain amount of class reform. This is partially reflected in our tax system.
The OP has proven that you either quit or move when taxes become unbearable.Turquoise wrote:
Norway has disproven that. So have many other countries (like basically all of the ones on Harmor's chart).Kmarion wrote:
You are creating a situation that makes it more economically feasible to not be successful. Failure will reward you more than success.Turquoise wrote:
The cost of production mostly applies to the costs paid by business, not the business owners. If corporate taxes are decreased while personal taxes are increased among the wealthy, there is an incentive for reinvestment rather than hoarding the wealth in personal finances.
The cost of production is considerably less when corporate taxes are low. Personal taxes have far less of an effect on the cost of doing business.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We do not all have the same opportunities, and it is unlikely that this will ever be true unless something akin to Plato's Republic is formed.Kmarion wrote:
Yielding his influence? He is specifically targeted because folks like you see his income as evil. This is despite having made it all in a system that gives you the same opportunity.
While it is true that we have a more level playing field than much of the rest of the world, do not mistake it as "fair" in an absolute sense.
I believe this taxation is the most efficient way. It has worked quite well for much of the First World. I don't see why it couldn't work for us.Kmarion wrote:
Who the hell said we should be doing "the quickest way". We should be striving to find what is fair, and what is the most efficient way. A third party coming in and picking your pocket and then deciding what they feel is best is not right. Especially when you just claimed that they are subjected to being influenced by other parties.
And businesses primarily move to countries with the lowest corporate taxes. Personal taxes don't seem to be much of a consideration -- although it is true that worker benefits play a part.Kmarion wrote:
The OP has proven that you either quit or move when taxes become unbearable.Turquoise wrote:
Norway has disproven that. So have many other countries (like basically all of the ones on Harmor's chart).Kmarion wrote:
You are creating a situation that makes it more economically feasible to not be successful. Failure will reward you more than success.