BF2S Forums And cunt of the week goes to...

lowing wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

I actually partly agree with Jay on this one. I've never been a fan of "taxing the hell out of the rich" just for the sake of taxing them. As you touched upon, Jay, I believe in the government doing its best to create equal opportunity in the path to success, and by that I mean attempting to eliminate factors that you don't have control of - like, say, the wealth and success of your parents.

That is why I am against private schools, and want free state schools for everyone up to and including high school. That is why I want universities that are cheap, if not free, and a government handing out cheap loans, so that going to university, and where you are going, is never a question of how much your parents earn, or how much your parents are willing to pay, or where they're willing to send you.

In addition to this, I also believe that there are a handful of services you should have the right to access, no matter who you are. An example of this is the access to medical help. I do not believe that you should be able to pay your way to better doctors, better facilities or pay to cut in front of others in the waiting line. So I'm against private hospitals.

And finally, there are some goods that I believe the government should sponsor/subsidize for the sake of 'the common good'. This can be environmental issues by subsidizing public transport and taxing fuel, for example.

There are a lot of things I want to be government-supported, and this obviously has to be paid for. I think that the taxes paying for this have to be based on how much you're able to pay, and that means higher percentages for the more wealthy. 50% is a lot more for someone on $40k pr. year than it is for someone on $1mill.

So yes, I'd tax the rich more and the poor less, but that is for the sake of equal opportunity, rather than equal wealth. It is not an effort to drag down or punish the rich (which seems to be an idea that's far more prevalent in the UK), but rather building a common base to work from and supporting the society as a whole.


So yeah, there's my personal political philosophy in a nutshell, I guess. Off-topic? Nah.

Sounds good on paper, but explain why 1 citizen should have to pay 50% of 1 million dollars, ( $500,000) while another citizen only pays 10% of 40,000 dollars ( $4,000) all for the same EXACT services. Then explain why the person who works for that 1 million dollars would have the inclination to keep doing so if all that was gunna happen is, the govt. was gunna take it from him? If yo do not think you are punishing success in such a scenario we will just have to agree to disagree

lowing wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

I actually partly agree with Jay on this one. I've never been a fan of "taxing the hell out of the rich" just for the sake of taxing them. As you touched upon, Jay, I believe in the government doing its best to create equal opportunity in the path to success, and by that I mean attempting to eliminate factors that you don't have control of - like, say, the wealth and success of your parents.

That is why I am against private schools, and want free state schools for everyone up to and including high school. That is why I want universities that are cheap, if not free, and a government handing out cheap loans, so that going to university, and where you are going, is never a question of how much your parents earn, or how much your parents are willing to pay, or where they're willing to send you.

In addition to this, I also believe that there are a handful of services you should have the right to access, no matter who you are. An example of this is the access to medical help. I do not believe that you should be able to pay your way to better doctors, better facilities or pay to cut in front of others in the waiting line. So I'm against private hospitals.

And finally, there are some goods that I believe the government should sponsor/subsidize for the sake of 'the common good'. This can be environmental issues by subsidizing public transport and taxing fuel, for example.

There are a lot of things I want to be government-supported, and this obviously has to be paid for. I think that the taxes paying for this have to be based on how much you're able to pay, and that means higher percentages for the more wealthy. 50% is a lot more for someone on $40k pr. year than it is for someone on $1mill.

So yes, I'd tax the rich more and the poor less, but that is for the sake of equal opportunity, rather than equal wealth. It is not an effort to drag down or punish the rich (which seems to be an idea that's far more prevalent in the UK), but rather building a common base to work from and supporting the society as a whole.


So yeah, there's my personal political philosophy in a nutshell, I guess. Off-topic? Nah.

Sounds good on paper, but explain why 1 citizen should have to pay 50% of 1 million dollars, ( $500,000) while another citizen only pays 10% of 40,000 dollars ( $4,000) all for the same EXACT services. Then explain why the person who works for that 1 million dollars would have the inclination to keep doing so if all that was gunna happen is, the govt. was gunna take it from him? Or is his motivation supposed to be the PRIVILEGE of working harder to pay more for govt. service than anyone else?  If yo do not think you are punishing success in such a scenario we will just have to agree to disagree

Jenspm wrote:

I actually partly agree with Jay on this one. I've never been a fan of "taxing the hell out of the rich"

Jenspm wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

I actually partly agree with Jay on this one. I've never been a fan of "taxing the hell out of the rich" just for the sake of taxing them. As you touched upon, Jay, I believe in the government doing its best to create equal opportunity in the path to success, and by that I mean attempting to eliminate factors that you don't have control of - like, say, the wealth and success of your parents.

That is why I am against private schools, and want free state schools for everyone up to and including high school. That is why I want universities that are cheap, if not free, and a government handing out cheap loans, so that going to university, and where you are going, is never a question of how much your parents earn, or how much your parents are willing to pay, or where they're willing to send you.

In addition to this, I also believe that there are a handful of services you should have the right to access, no matter who you are. An example of this is the access to medical help. I do not believe that you should be able to pay your way to better doctors, better facilities or pay to cut in front of others in the waiting line. So I'm against private hospitals.

And finally, there are some goods that I believe the government should sponsor/subsidize for the sake of 'the common good'. This can be environmental issues by subsidizing public transport and taxing fuel, for example.

There are a lot of things I want to be government-supported, and this obviously has to be paid for. I think that the taxes paying for this have to be based on how much you're able to pay, and that means higher percentages for the more wealthy. 50% is a lot more for someone on $40k pr. year than it is for someone on $1mill.

So yes, I'd tax the rich more and the poor less, but that is for the sake of equal opportunity, rather than equal wealth. It is not an effort to drag down or punish the rich (which seems to be an idea that's far more prevalent in the UK), but rather building a common base to work from and supporting the society as a whole.


So yeah, there's my personal political philosophy in a nutshell, I guess. Off-topic? Nah.

Sounds good on paper, but explain why 1 citizen should have to pay 50% of 1 million dollars, ( $500,000) while another citizen only pays 10% of 40,000 dollars ( $4,000) all for the same EXACT services. Then explain why the person who works for that 1 million dollars would have the inclination to keep doing so if all that was gunna happen is, the govt. was gunna take it from him? Or is his motivation supposed to be the PRIVILEGE of working harder to pay more for govt. service than anyone else?  If yo do not think you are punishing success in such a scenario we will just have to agree to disagree

There is, of course, a limit as to how much you can tax before the work force lose motivation. I personally believe that this hovers somewhere around 50%.

Yes, the rich would pay more for the same services. But if we'd set the tax at, say, $4k pr. person regardless of income, we wouldn't be able to afford the equality that I want from society. I'd rather have the tax differences.

There is also an argument that in a system like this the rich can thank the system for being guaranteed the platform/opportunity to get to where they are now, whereas in a low-tax system they'd be highly handicapped if they were to be born in a poor, lower-class family.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-29 07:31:23)

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Rich people doesn't need roads, hospitals, firefighters, police, water, sewage etc etc etc etc ???

That was new to me tbh ...

Sure they do, so does everyone else, so why should the rich pay 40% more for it than anyone else?

Jay wrote:

I certainly wouldn't work nearly as hard if the primary reason for my work was stripped away from me. Why am I working? To be comfortable for sure, but I always have my eyes set on what I can provide my future children. I want to be able to give them the 'unfair advantages' so they have a better shot in life than I did. I want to be able to pay for their college so they don't have to join the military to do so. I want to be able to provide superior health care so that if they get sick, they'll have the best care possible.

Some people are born into shit families with shit for money and shitty work ethic. All the money that progressives throw at them is an utter waste of time and effort. They're fucked from birth and there's nothing you can do about it short of sticking everyone in government orphanages to be raised.

lowing wrote:

Coupla things to consider. First, the rich doesn't NEED any of the bullshit govt. services that you suggest they should be glad to pay for. Second, you still need to justify, considering the lack of need by the rich for the govt. , what should motivate them to work harder, to pay more, for services they don't even need or probably want?

and no, not many people in this world became rich due to govt. intrusion on their lives.

Macbeth wrote:

Everyone in Congress.

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Well I don't think it's much of a leap to assume that the kids attending those camps, had parents who were of the same religion.

Or am I wrong on that assumption?

And what does that have to do with the kid wanting to go on their own? You can't be brainwashed if you already believe it, ffs.

Yeah, you can't be brainwashed if you already believe it is my point exactly.

The parents have already pushed them into that direction.

Maybe I missed a step when I stated the reason they are at those camps is cause the parents sent them.

lowing wrote:

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR, if the rich could keep more of their money they would have more to reinvest, buy all of their toys, build their businesses, put people to work, creating jobs, generating more revenue for govt.