Last Presidential Debate: Oh, why bother?

[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']So successful people should have to pay more? Even if they're taxed the same percent as you, they're still paying more just from that. Why would anyone ever punish success? When my kid learns to tie his shoes, should I slap him in the face?

As far as the government 'doing all sorts of things for rich people' get rid of them too. The government shouldn't be giving money out to anyone, individuals or business. Everyone should be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, and if not, too bad. [/quote]

If everybody plays fair, we could all pay the same tax rate. Oops. There's that word "IF" again. Here's the tricky part about the progressive tax rate: deductions. For example, the mortgage deduction. I bought a smaller house and my interest is less than a standard deduction. Joe the Plumber buys a lavish house with triple the interest of a standard deduction. His effective tax rate drops because he splurged on a house. Is that fair? Let's try company perks. At my first job out of college, every vice president was given a company truck and the company paid for the gas. I'm sure they weren't taxed on the value of their car or the gas they spent on trips to the grocer. I would have liked a truck and free gas, but I wasn't a VP. I would have settled for a raise, but those trucks weren't cheap. Is that fair? Simply put. The tax rate a person "pays" isn't the whole picture.

[quote name='I_Am_ProZac'] So you're suggesting the government (in otherwords, taxes from everyone) should pay for those? So while I haven't been to see a doctor in 5 years, I'll be paying for everyone else's great healthcare? Ok, yeah, that seems fair.[/quote]

I don't want to lose health care from my employer. One of my kids, my wife or I might develop a chronic condition in next decade regardless of health choices. Under McCain, I start paying more taxes as my premiums go higher. At some point of higher premiums, my employer will just drop my insurance instead of making up some reason to terminate me or I'll drop the insurance because I can't afford it. Then, I get a $5K check to shop around insurance companies WITH a preexisting condition and no option for COBRA. Then, my options are medically induced bankruptcy or early retirement underground.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I might be wrong in this, but I think everyone's taxes should go up. Scaled according, of course, to compensate for the poor class being, well, poor. But we got ourselves into this deficit and it needs to be fixed. I don't know why we have such a high deficit. I thought we were supposed to be one of the greatest countries on Earth, not some slutty housewife who doesn't know when to stop using her husband's credit card.[/quote]

Yes and no. Government spending (ie. defense, farm bills, corporate welfare, individual welfare) should be reduced substantially. Still a deficit? Then, we can talk about higher taxes.

I don't need to pick up a second job just so my wife can upgrade to a brand new Mercedes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If everybody plays fair, we could all pay the same tax rate. Oops. There's that word "IF" again. Here's the tricky part about the progressive tax rate: deductions. For example, the mortgage deduction. I bought a smaller house and my interest is less than a standard deduction. Joe the Plumber buys a lavish house with triple the interest of a standard deduction. His effective tax rate drops because he splurged on a house. Is that fair? Let's try company perks. At my first job out of college, every vice president was given a company truck and the company paid for the gas. I'm sure they weren't taxed on the value of their car or the gas they spent on trips to the grocer. I would have liked a truck and free gas, but I wasn't a VP. I would have settled for a raise, but those trucks weren't cheap. Is that fair? Simply put. The tax rate a person "pays" isn't the whole picture.

I don't want to lose health care from my employer. One of my kids, my wife or I might develop a chronic condition in next decade regardless of health choices. Under McCain, I start paying more taxes as my premiums go higher. At some point of higher premiums, my employer will just drop my insurance instead of making up some reason to terminate me or I'll drop the insurance because I can't afford it. Then, I get a $5K check to shop around insurance companies WITH a preexisting condition and no option for COBRA. Then, my options are medically induced bankruptcy or early retirement underground.[/quote]

Thanks for giving me an intelligent response than mindless rabble like I get from most people. First, with the taxes, I understand it's not the whole picture. It'd take a major change to our current system for everyone to be equal/fair on taxes. Joe the Plumber's tax rate shouldn't go down b/c of his 'splurge'. What should happen is the tax is equivalent to a house size. You want a big house/you can afford that luxury, you can afford to pay more. Everyone can pay the same rate, just based on size.

As for the health insurance, I don't think a global policy is the solution to this. We need more trustworthy policies, so those fears of being dropped due to a high premium aren't there. I don't believe McCain is the perfect candidate, I just think his policies are a little closer to the direction we should be moving. Americans are stubborn and change doesn't happen fast.
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']First, with the taxes, I understand it's not the whole picture. It'd take a major change to our current system for everyone to be equal/fair on taxes. Joe the Plumber's tax rate shouldn't go down b/c of his 'splurge'. What should happen is the tax is equivalent to a house size. You want a big house/you can afford that luxury, you can afford to pay more. Everyone can pay the same rate, just based on size. [/quote]

How do you propose for that to work? We can buy McMansions here in Indiana for $400k but that gets you a condo in the suburbs of NYC. And your system kind of makes you hyprocrite. You just said that you shouldn't slap someone in the face for being successful but then you just said that people with bigger houses can afford to pay a little more. Pick a side.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If everybody plays fair, we could all pay the same tax rate.[/QUOTE]

As you said, that's the kicker. Complete free market capitalism makes the same mistake of naivete ("Nobody will exploit one another or cheat to get ahead! Leave them alone") every bit as much as communism does ("Nobody will take advantage of other people's sacrifices! We're all equal!").
 
[quote name='depascal22']How do you propose for that to work? We can buy McMansions here in Indiana for $400k but that gets you a condo in the suburbs of NYC. And your system kind of makes you hyprocrite. You just said that you shouldn't slap someone in the face for being successful but then you just said that people with bigger houses can afford to pay a little more. Pick a side.[/quote]

They would be paying more on a percentile basis, not a solid value.
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']They would be paying more on a percentile basis, not a solid value.[/quote]

A percentage of what? If it's home value, it's not going to be fair again. You're punishing those that live in different parts of the country. That only works if everyone has the same cost of living.
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']They would be paying more on a percentile basis, not a solid value.[/QUOTE]


So the broke mother of 6 kids (adopted lets say) that lives in the slums of the city has to pay more taxes due ot her house size, and the rich bachelor that has a 1 bedroom $500k house pays less? Doesnt work that way either.
 
[quote name='trq']As you said, that's the kicker. Complete free market capitalism makes the same mistake of naivete ("Nobody will exploit one another or cheat to get ahead! Leave them alone") every bit as much as communism does ("Nobody will take advantage of other people's sacrifices! We're all equal!").[/quote]

I really like the way you phrased that - and I completely agree.
 
Why was McCain so afraid of Zero last night?

Because Zero is a Maverick Hunter.

megaman_zero001.jpg
 
[quote name='depascal22']A percentage of what? If it's home value, it's not going to be fair again. You're punishing those that live in different parts of the country. That only works if everyone has the same cost of living.[/quote]

You could easily standardize a taxable home value based on what, where, etc that would standardize no matter where you are.

[quote name='Snake2715']So the broke mother of 6 kids (adopted lets say) that lives in the slums of the city has to pay more taxes due ot her house size, and the rich bachelor that has a 1 bedroom $500k house pays less? Doesnt work that way either.[/quote]

First, I don't care how this mother got the 6 kids, I have no sympathy for her if she's taking on more than she can handle. Second, I don't see how this mother would be paying more anyway you cut it. Are you saying the value of her house is more than $500K? If so, yeah, she can pay more (she'll get it back in tax breaks for the children anyway).
 
What if we change the woman with children scenario? This one would take place in an alternate universe in 2010 and that same woman was raped four times and a victim of incest twice. Under President Palin's regime, she was forced to keep those children.
 
In a perfect world, a flat percent tax makes sense (well, if there were taxes in a perfect world...). In this one, a progressive tax does.
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']You could easily standardize a taxable home value based on what, where, etc that would standardize no matter where you are.



First, I don't care how this mother got the 6 kids, I have no sympathy for her if she's taking on more than she can handle. Second, I don't see how this mother would be paying more anyway you cut it. Are you saying the value of her house is more than $500K? If so, yeah, she can pay more (she'll get it back in tax breaks for the children anyway).[/QUOTE]

Foster mother? Her relatives kids died and its either with her or an orphanage?

Please, show us just how pathetic you are. You won't be fustigated this time I swear.
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']First, I don't care how this mother got the 6 kids, I have no sympathy for her if she's taking on more than she can handle. Second, I don't see how this mother would be paying more anyway you cut it. Are you saying the value of her house is more than $500K? If so, yeah, she can pay more (she'll get it back in tax breaks for the children anyway).[/quote]

Wow, dude. Are you trying to help this country or not?
 
[quote name='I_Am_ProZac']You could easily standardize a taxable home value based on what, where, etc that would standardize no matter where you are.



First, I don't care how this mother got the 6 kids, I have no sympathy for her if she's taking on more than she can handle. Second, I don't see how this mother would be paying more anyway you cut it. Are you saying the value of her house is more than $500K? If so, yeah, she can pay more (she'll get it back in tax breaks for the children anyway).[/QUOTE]

No I am getting at and asking if your method based in on house size.. she wouldnt be taking on more than she can handle as she took the kids on before the taxes changed in your scenario. So are you saying that the size of the house, regardless of value should be the sole basis of taxes on that property?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top