Where did I say that the poor and middle class shouldn't be taxed? Also, where did I say that we should tax the rich to the point that they can't provide for their own?Kmarion wrote:
Why tax just the wealthy? Isn't opportunity the responsibility of everyone? Shouldn't the middle class pay the price? Why is being poor an automatic free pass to entitlement? We have various welfare support programs as well as grants/scholarships in place. Yes having a family that can pay for extended education is an advantage. But that doesn't mean we should punish the most successful to the point that they can not provide for their own. This type of discrimination resembles wealth envy. I'm all for getting rid of the wink and a nod stuff to gain acceptance/employment. That is where we need to even out the playing field. Selectively taking money from a specific group of people is not equality.
get the wealthy to fund various amenities that accomplish this..? Why else would you just mention one group? Everyone should fund these amenities equally. If you place the entire burden on one group it will certainly impair that groups ability to provide their own opportunity. Basic logic.Turquoise wrote:
Where did I say that the poor and middle class shouldn't be taxed? Also, where did I say that we should tax the rich to the point that they can't provide for their own?Kmarion wrote:
Why tax just the wealthy? Isn't opportunity the responsibility of everyone? Shouldn't the middle class pay the price? Why is being poor an automatic free pass to entitlement? We have various welfare support programs as well as grants/scholarships in place. Yes having a family that can pay for extended education is an advantage. But that doesn't mean we should punish the most successful to the point that they can not provide for their own. This type of discrimination resembles wealth envy. I'm all for getting rid of the wink and a nod stuff to gain acceptance/employment. That is where we need to even out the playing field. Selectively taking money from a specific group of people is not equality.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Progressive taxation is not the same thing as only taxing the rich. It's just taxing the rich more than others. The majority of First World nations have a graduated personal income tax system, and this is because it takes a lot of money to fund various programs. Since the majority of wealth is usually concentrated among a small portion of the population in most First World societies, the only way that enough funds enter the system to maintain decent public amenities is to tax the wealthy more.Kmarion wrote:
get the wealthy to fund various amenities that accomplish this..? Why else would you just mention one group? Everyone should fund these amenities equally. If you place the entire burden on one group it will certainly impair that groups ability to provide their own opportunity. Basic logic.Turquoise wrote:
Where did I say that the poor and middle class shouldn't be taxed? Also, where did I say that we should tax the rich to the point that they can't provide for their own?Kmarion wrote:
Why tax just the wealthy? Isn't opportunity the responsibility of everyone? Shouldn't the middle class pay the price? Why is being poor an automatic free pass to entitlement? We have various welfare support programs as well as grants/scholarships in place. Yes having a family that can pay for extended education is an advantage. But that doesn't mean we should punish the most successful to the point that they can not provide for their own. This type of discrimination resembles wealth envy. I'm all for getting rid of the wink and a nod stuff to gain acceptance/employment. That is where we need to even out the playing field. Selectively taking money from a specific group of people is not equality.
Varegg mentioned the overtaxing issue, but that's a subjective question. You could say that having anything other than a flat tax on income is overtaxing the wealthy, but apparently, few First World nations would agree with that. If America converted to a flat income tax, we'd either have to cut spending tremendously or... the flat tax would have to be a percentage that is much higher than what the working class currently pays. The wealthy would pay a little less than before, while the working class would pay a lot more.
And your logic, by the way, fails because the wealthy already have a lot more funds to work with, so they can part with a lot more of them before they are actually affected in terms of opportunity.
The rich are taxed much more than "the others" here. You agreed with this when you said that a flat tax would amount to "The wealthy would pay a little less than before, while the working class would pay a lot more." I couldn't give a crap about another countries taxation plan. There are many different variables that are rarely looked at when people try to make these ridiculous comparisons. You seem to have this idea that wealth = no concern for fellow man. This is not necessarily true. Plenty of well to do off people volunteer in supporting grants and other programs without government mandate. Who do you think all of these organizations solicit when they need money? They target the wealthy for a reason. Yes there are tax benefits as well. Those tax breaks they get for promoting opportunity does not help them in terms of public opinion. The short sighted people can't think two steps back and have trouble figuring that out. Those same people who just look at bottom line federal taxes while ignoring state taxes, sales tax, country taxes, and the fact that the reason they had breaks was because they were already doing it on their own. They ignore the fact that the wealthy is also the largest group of employers. That's not opportunity though .
My logic does not fail. Yours does. You pretend to favor equality while targeting a specific group of people. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
My logic does not fail. Yours does. You pretend to favor equality while targeting a specific group of people. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We need to continue promoting the concentration of wealth. the bottom 40% of americans control less than 1% of the wealth in the US. This country would be better off with the bottom 70 or 80% controlling less than 1%. All those generous trillionaires could donate even more of their time to help those less fortunate entitlement whores.
Well then, why don't we end the income tax? Surely if the rich were able to keep all of their income, they'd spend it better than the government does in promoting opportunity.Kmarion wrote:
The rich are taxed much more than "the others" here. You agreed with this when you said that a flat tax would amount to "The wealthy would pay a little less than before, while the working class would pay a lot more." I couldn't give a crap about another countries taxation plan. There are many different variables that are rarely looked at when people try to make these ridiculous comparisons. You seem to have this idea that wealth = no concern for fellow man. This is not necessarily true. Plenty of well to do off people volunteer in supporting grants and other programs without government mandate. Who do you think all of these organizations solicit when they need money? They target the wealthy for a reason. Yes there are tax benefits as well. Those tax breaks they get for promoting opportunity does not help them in terms of public opinion. The short sighted people can't think two steps back and have trouble figuring that out. Those same people who just look at bottom line federal taxes while ignoring state taxes, sales tax, country taxes, and the fact that the reason they had breaks was because they were already doing it on their own. They ignore the fact that the wealthy is also the largest group of employers. That's not opportunity though .
My logic does not fail. Yours does. You pretend to favor equality while targeting a specific group of people. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Because I believe in a hybrid. Somewhere in between the two. The bureaucratic squandering on our national level does very little to promote opportunity imo. That isn't to say that they are incapable of building infrastructure and ensuring the common defense.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, why don't we end the income tax? Surely if the rich were able to keep all of their income, they'd spend it better than the government does in promoting opportunity.Kmarion wrote:
The rich are taxed much more than "the others" here. You agreed with this when you said that a flat tax would amount to "The wealthy would pay a little less than before, while the working class would pay a lot more." I couldn't give a crap about another countries taxation plan. There are many different variables that are rarely looked at when people try to make these ridiculous comparisons. You seem to have this idea that wealth = no concern for fellow man. This is not necessarily true. Plenty of well to do off people volunteer in supporting grants and other programs without government mandate. Who do you think all of these organizations solicit when they need money? They target the wealthy for a reason. Yes there are tax benefits as well. Those tax breaks they get for promoting opportunity does not help them in terms of public opinion. The short sighted people can't think two steps back and have trouble figuring that out. Those same people who just look at bottom line federal taxes while ignoring state taxes, sales tax, country taxes, and the fact that the reason they had breaks was because they were already doing it on their own. They ignore the fact that the wealthy is also the largest group of employers. That's not opportunity though .
My logic does not fail. Yours does. You pretend to favor equality while targeting a specific group of people. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So are you saying you support a flat income tax?Kmarion wrote:
Because I believe in a hybrid. Somewhere in between the two. The bureaucratic squandering on our national level does very little to promote opportunity imo. That isn't to say that they are incapable of building infrastructure and ensuring the common defense.
Was that the UN itself or some of its individual members?Turquoise wrote:
Well, to be fair, the Oil for Food Scandal is probably the most blatant evidence of the U.N.'s corruption.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
If your going to generalize like that, you might as well say Democrats = Obama, and that's at least as bad as being Bush.m3thod wrote:
repubs = bush.Macbeth wrote:
At least they don't set things on fire or go around destroying property like those cunt anarchist.m3thod wrote:
repubs are defo worse than dems. It's like they're on a another planet.
ultimate fail.
Well, Kofi Annan was involved, so I assume that the U.N. was pretty heavily involved itself.Dilbert_X wrote:
Was that the UN itself or some of its individual members?Turquoise wrote:
Well, to be fair, the Oil for Food Scandal is probably the most blatant evidence of the U.N.'s corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
Wow, the huffpost must be hardup now that the Bush/Palin well is dry.Macbeth wrote:
Fox News Producer caught rallying protest
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Allegedly, still doesn't mean the UN as a whole was.Well, Kofi Annan was involved, so I assume that the U.N. was pretty heavily involved itself.
So the UN is corrupt, the US is corrupt.wiki wrote:
It has also been alleged that the American government was aware of the scandal and chose to not prevent the smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.
Really some members of the UN were corrupt, doesn't mean the whole organisation is fundamentally corrupt.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
They seem to be having some issues with their aid workers abusing children too...Dilbert_X wrote:
Allegedly, still doesn't mean the UN as a whole was.Well, Kofi Annan was involved, so I assume that the U.N. was pretty heavily involved itself.So the UN is corrupt, the US is corrupt.wiki wrote:
It has also been alleged that the American government was aware of the scandal and chose to not prevent the smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.
Really some members of the UN were corrupt, doesn't mean the whole organisation is fundamentally corrupt.
Then clearly the UN must be disbanded, since a few of its employees are dishonest/criminals.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I didn't give corruption as my rationale for disbanding it. I was just saying it has corruption issues.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then clearly the UN must be disbanded, since a few of its employees are dishonest/criminals.
Not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, but because some of them are, the Catholic Church has corruption issues. It's the same kind of issue.
Fair enough, all organisations have corruption issues, usually in proportion to the power they wield.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-20 02:00:56)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Sure, if you have two people with equal skills, experience, intelligence etc then they should ultimately make the same amount of money as each other. You're trying to make it so apples and oranges are equal. All that does is discourage the apple from working quite as hard as he was before because he'll see no return on his time investment. The orange also becomes discouraged from working as hard because he doesn't have to to keep up with the apple. Pure Socialism has no carrot on a stick to goad people and it is the critical flaw in the system. Guilt only works for so long before people become numb and/or angry.Turquoise wrote:
If you're saying that people who favor taxing the rich more are against equality... well... here's a thought.Kmarion wrote:
This is a very broad title. You are mixing progressive and liberal without discretion. Again, at one time it was considered progressive to use and own other humans. Even today some so called progressives think it is ok to discriminate and forcibly tax CERTAIN people in to submission so long as it serves the state. The fact that is is not based on race does not mean that they favor equality.Turquoise wrote:
social liberals
What if your goal is to make everyone equal in wealth? That's the ultimate equality....
Edit - It's also the very reason that graduated income tax systems are doomed to failure. Sure, it's easy to shove a heavier tax load on the wealthy because there are fewer of them than there are middle or lower class people. You don't lose as many votes. You know damn well that it comes down to votes more than anything else. See, but the rich control the jobs and they're more than happy to move those jobs overseas because they don't want to pay taxes in a place like the US. Progressive tax system is built on jealousy and should be repealed in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-20 08:15:39)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Pure socialism has never really been tried, except in Star Trek.
During wartime Westerners are prepared to effectively function as socialists, but not otherwise.
During wartime Westerners are prepared to effectively function as socialists, but not otherwise.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It doesn't stop them from trying to install it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pure socialism has never really been tried, except in Star Trek.
During wartime Westerners are prepared to effectively function as socialists, but not otherwise.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes ...Turquoise wrote:
Define overtaxing. For example, Norway taxes the wealthy a lot more than we do. Would you say that Norway overtaxes them?Varegg wrote:
They also donate hospitals, build schools and roads and donates to science ... they contribute their fair share, overtaxing them makes them pack up and leave to another country that doesn't "rob" them ...Turquoise wrote:
Now this... I agree with, but the easiest way to even out opportunities is to get the wealthy to fund various amenities that accomplish this. They have the most influence in our system, so it is essentially an influence tax in favor of more opportunities for the common man.
Overtaxing works just like I mentioned in the post you quoted, they take their businesses elsewhere, so taxing the wealthiest too much makes them flag out their businesses and you loose all the taxes they previously paid ... the balance between greed and a "fair" share is difficult ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I could be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage of rich people in your country. By most measures, your quality of life is higher than mine. The HDI seems to strongly suggest this.Varegg wrote:
Yes ...Turquoise wrote:
Define overtaxing. For example, Norway taxes the wealthy a lot more than we do. Would you say that Norway overtaxes them?Varegg wrote:
They also donate hospitals, build schools and roads and donates to science ... they contribute their fair share, overtaxing them makes them pack up and leave to another country that doesn't "rob" them ...
Overtaxing works just like I mentioned in the post you quoted, they take their businesses elsewhere, so taxing the wealthiest too much makes them flag out their businesses and you loose all the taxes they previously paid ... the balance between greed and a "fair" share is difficult ...
If you read my post to Varegg earlier, I explained that my argument was philosophical. I also see the problem in literally paying everyone the same amount of money.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, if you have two people with equal skills, experience, intelligence etc then they should ultimately make the same amount of money as each other. You're trying to make it so apples and oranges are equal. All that does is discourage the apple from working quite as hard as he was before because he'll see no return on his time investment. The orange also becomes discouraged from working as hard because he doesn't have to to keep up with the apple. Pure Socialism has no carrot on a stick to goad people and it is the critical flaw in the system. Guilt only works for so long before people become numb and/or angry.
There's a big difference between what my philosophical argument was and a graduated income tax system. The majority of the First World has one, and for good reason. Unless we dramatically lower government spending first, we need one. So, if a flat income tax is on the agenda, you're going to have to cut government spending first to make it feasible.JohnG@lt wrote:
Edit - It's also the very reason that graduated income tax systems are doomed to failure. Sure, it's easy to shove a heavier tax load on the wealthy because there are fewer of them than there are middle or lower class people. You don't lose as many votes. You know damn well that it comes down to votes more than anything else. See, but the rich control the jobs and they're more than happy to move those jobs overseas because they don't want to pay taxes in a place like the US. Progressive tax system is built on jealousy and should be repealed in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions.
Ok, since this has moved into taxation, I have two ideas I believe would solve the issue, neither are of course original to me. First, a flat, 10% income tax. No lobbyists, no tax breaks, no exemptions, no nothing. If you make 10 dollars a year, 1 goes to the fed, if you make a million, 100,000 goes to the fed. If you live and work in this country, you help to support it through payment of taxes. Second, mirror the trade relations of the nations we import from. If nation x imposes a 35% tariff on our exports, impose a tariff of the exact same amount on imports from nation x. If nation y doesn't tax our goods, don't tax theirs. Again, no loop holes, no end runs, no "preferred nation status". Level the playing field, on both the home and multi national stages.