Heres the way I look at it. If I made 2.6 million dollars a year id probally give a solid 2 million to charities or id adopt a couple extra kids and still give most of it away to charity. When I start seeing these rich bastards grow a heart and put their money to good use.....ill start caring a little more about their crying.
Your Taxes Under McCain and Obama
- Thread starter mykevermin
- Start date
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']Heres the way I look at it. If I made 2.6 million dollars a year id probally give a solid 2 million to charities or id adopt a couple extra kids and still give most of it away to charity. When I start seeing these rich bastards grow a heart and put their money to good use.....ill start caring a little more about their crying.[/quote]
Not to flip flop, but ...
It is their money, not the government's.
Not to flip flop, but ...
It is their money, not the government's.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not to flip flop, but ...
It is their money, not the government's.[/QUOTE]
The goverment has every right to tax us whatever they want. If we dont like it we can leave the country. Simple as that. Now with that being said, does it mean they should tax us insane rates? Thats highly debatable. But im a time where so much needs to be done and the rich are refusing to do much but fatten their own pockets, I dont really mind them being taxed more. Maybe if they stepped up a little more then people like me and you would speak out for them a little more. Maybe if they invested in America vs sending jobs over seas we would speak up for them a little more. And maybe if CEOs were payed based on their performance and even then not hundreds of millions we would care a little more.
It is their money, not the government's.[/QUOTE]
The goverment has every right to tax us whatever they want. If we dont like it we can leave the country. Simple as that. Now with that being said, does it mean they should tax us insane rates? Thats highly debatable. But im a time where so much needs to be done and the rich are refusing to do much but fatten their own pockets, I dont really mind them being taxed more. Maybe if they stepped up a little more then people like me and you would speak out for them a little more. Maybe if they invested in America vs sending jobs over seas we would speak up for them a little more. And maybe if CEOs were payed based on their performance and even then not hundreds of millions we would care a little more.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.
See Iraq and prescription drug bill.
As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?
See Iraq and prescription drug bill.
As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.
See Iraq and prescription drug bill.
As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say they are spending their money properly. Hell you named 2 things, I guarantee you can go and look at almost any government program and find a ton of waste. Im just as pissed off about that as how the rich are using their money. There are few politicians left or right that I respect...most id rather spit at their feet and say they disgust me for what they have let and are letting happen to our country. Same goes for subsidies, farm bills and the other. Hell I dont even care if companies take jobs overseas, I just think they should either then be reinvesting the money they are making on globalization back into creating new US jobs or accept the fact that the government is going to tax them and create programs to retrain U.S citizens out of work. Id prefer the companies to do it over the government though, 1 thats the way it should be and 2 they would do a better job.
The facts are that ya the government is screwing up right now, right and left.....but that doesn't change the fact that the rich are just getting richer and richer while laughing at the rest of us. I cant remember if it was T Boone Pickens, Warrent Buffet or another ultra rich old guy that said this but one talked about their immigrant father who worked hard to make a small amount of money so his kid could make something of themselves. That he took that little bit of money and through hard made it rich. He said he then invested that back into America and the American Dream....but he was pissed off because nowdays he sees people getting ultra rich with little work and often by screwing over fellow country men. They then take and piddle away their money and dont give a shit about country. I think that statement was dead on. Rich people nowdays are the exact same as the men in your avatar.
See Iraq and prescription drug bill.
As far as jobs going overseas, how much of that does the government subsidize through mileage exemptions or farm bills?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say they are spending their money properly. Hell you named 2 things, I guarantee you can go and look at almost any government program and find a ton of waste. Im just as pissed off about that as how the rich are using their money. There are few politicians left or right that I respect...most id rather spit at their feet and say they disgust me for what they have let and are letting happen to our country. Same goes for subsidies, farm bills and the other. Hell I dont even care if companies take jobs overseas, I just think they should either then be reinvesting the money they are making on globalization back into creating new US jobs or accept the fact that the government is going to tax them and create programs to retrain U.S citizens out of work. Id prefer the companies to do it over the government though, 1 thats the way it should be and 2 they would do a better job.
The facts are that ya the government is screwing up right now, right and left.....but that doesn't change the fact that the rich are just getting richer and richer while laughing at the rest of us. I cant remember if it was T Boone Pickens, Warrent Buffet or another ultra rich old guy that said this but one talked about their immigrant father who worked hard to make a small amount of money so his kid could make something of themselves. That he took that little bit of money and through hard made it rich. He said he then invested that back into America and the American Dream....but he was pissed off because nowdays he sees people getting ultra rich with little work and often by screwing over fellow country men. They then take and piddle away their money and dont give a shit about country. I think that statement was dead on. Rich people nowdays are the exact same as the men in your avatar.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Now we're getting somewhere! Now we're getting the empty political rhetoric that comes from people who realize that the tax burden of 95% of the population will be LIGHTER under a "tax and spend liberal," and the resultant cognitive dissonance at work!
Forget thinking critically about your ideology; attack, attack, ATTACK!!!![/QUOTE]
Hey I really don't knock the Obama income tax changes. It's inconsequential to me. It's cute, though, that just because your convinced income tax will be better under Obama, you'll turn a blind eye to other silly tax nonsense he DOES have and call it baseless rhetoric and attacks.
But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.
Forget thinking critically about your ideology; attack, attack, ATTACK!!!![/QUOTE]
Hey I really don't knock the Obama income tax changes. It's inconsequential to me. It's cute, though, that just because your convinced income tax will be better under Obama, you'll turn a blind eye to other silly tax nonsense he DOES have and call it baseless rhetoric and attacks.
But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I would prefer a flat tax with NO DEDUCTIONS.
[/QUOTE]
I could never support it as it's just not fair, despite being a flat rate across all groups.
Paying say 20-25% of you income in taxes is huge burden to someone making $15,000 but really no burden at all to someone making $1 million. Yes the millionaire pays a lot more in sum, but his quality of life isn't affected where as a person making $15,000 would struggle to make ends meet with no taxes, much less with 20-25%.
That's an extreme comparison, but it holds as you to through the brackets, a flat rate will always be much harder on the lower brackets and gradually move up to not mattering much by the higher brackets.
I used to be in favor of a flat tax years ago, but now after more thought there's no way I'd support moving off a graduated tax bracket system. The richer shouldn't just pay more money, they should also pay a higher percentage for all the reasons I outlined earlier in the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I could never support it as it's just not fair, despite being a flat rate across all groups.
Paying say 20-25% of you income in taxes is huge burden to someone making $15,000 but really no burden at all to someone making $1 million. Yes the millionaire pays a lot more in sum, but his quality of life isn't affected where as a person making $15,000 would struggle to make ends meet with no taxes, much less with 20-25%.
That's an extreme comparison, but it holds as you to through the brackets, a flat rate will always be much harder on the lower brackets and gradually move up to not mattering much by the higher brackets.
I used to be in favor of a flat tax years ago, but now after more thought there's no way I'd support moving off a graduated tax bracket system. The richer shouldn't just pay more money, they should also pay a higher percentage for all the reasons I outlined earlier in the thread.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The government isn't spending the money they receive properly.
[/QUOTE]
That's a separate issue. I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes. That doesn't mean I think the government is doing a great job currently.
What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).
[quote name='thrustbucket']
But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So
them.
[/QUOTE]
That's a separate issue. I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes. That doesn't mean I think the government is doing a great job currently.
What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).
[quote name='thrustbucket']
But as most of us lauded the last refund check as ridiculous, any person with a brain would have to at least raise an eyebrow at corporate lynching Robin Hood style for the next one.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So
them.
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a separate issue. I believe in a large and strong government, lots of social programming etc, and thus fairly high taxes. That doesn't mean I think the government is doing a great job currently.
What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So them.[/QUOTE]
Gas price are also driven by speculations and investors. Its not just the gas companies. most of you are saying how the upper class are greedy and such with all their money. They are the one spending the most money on products and throwing the biggest parties. All the money they spent are going into companies and services, that the middle man work in. And all the taxes on the large sum of money they spend are going into the government. The tax on one of their car purchase are equal to many purchases of the small sedans we drive. And most of us only own one sedan while those guys have multiple sport cars.
consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.
oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.
What you do in such cases is vote for people in line with your beliefs on how government spending should change. Not oppose taxes. Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So
them.[/QUOTE]Gas price are also driven by speculations and investors. Its not just the gas companies. most of you are saying how the upper class are greedy and such with all their money. They are the one spending the most money on products and throwing the biggest parties. All the money they spent are going into companies and services, that the middle man work in. And all the taxes on the large sum of money they spend are going into the government. The tax on one of their car purchase are equal to many purchases of the small sedans we drive. And most of us only own one sedan while those guys have multiple sport cars.
consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.
oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.
[quote name='HuBu']Gas price are also driven by speculations and investors. Its not just the gas companies. most of you are saying how the upper class are greedy and such with all their money. They are the one spending the most money on products and throwing the biggest parties. All the money they spent are going into companies and services, that the middle man work in. And all the taxes on the large sum of money they spend are going into the government. The tax on one of their car purchase are equal to many purchases of the small sedans we drive. And most of us only own one sedan while those guys have multiple sport cars.
consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.
oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.[/QUOTE]
Screw Reaganomics. The trickle down theory doesnt work and we should not be happy with the small amount of money we make off them buying their $100,000 car. Just because the average consumer is a moron that spends far too much money and gets themselves in trouble doesnt mean we should just let the rich get huge hand outs.
Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.
consumers struggle because you are the idiot buying into it. Why do you think there are so many foreclosed homes, because people bought homes they know they can't afford or manage. yes i know that some people are really foreclosing because of the tight economy, but the rest are people that wanted to make quick cash without considering the risk of things. and there are always those out their scamming on those that don't understand how things work.
oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.[/QUOTE]
Screw Reaganomics. The trickle down theory doesnt work and we should not be happy with the small amount of money we make off them buying their $100,000 car. Just because the average consumer is a moron that spends far too much money and gets themselves in trouble doesnt mean we should just let the rich get huge hand outs.
Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.
[quote name='MSI Magus']Screw Reaganomics. The trickle down theory doesnt work and we should not be happy with the small amount of money we make off them buying their $100,000 car. Just because the average consumer is a moron that spends far too much money and gets themselves in trouble doesnt mean we should just let the rich get huge hand outs.
Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.[/QUOTE]
just like how we don't dodge taxes ourselves. or people playing the system so they can get welfare support when they don't actually meet the requirement for it? do you see poor people pissing their money away?
Its laughable that you cant see whats wrong with saying they pay enough taxes, after all they buy multiple cars in a year! Ya that means they are paying more in taxes, but it also means its just because they piss their money away. You also ignore the fact that much of they money they are making is coming out of our pocket and that they hire tax help that lets them dodge taxes and use loopholes that equal out to dozens times more then we make in a year.[/QUOTE]
just like how we don't dodge taxes ourselves. or people playing the system so they can get welfare support when they don't actually meet the requirement for it? do you see poor people pissing their money away?
[quote name='HuBu']oil companies are not suffering because there are still people out there that thinks driving a hummers and SUVs are cool. its like that saying, vote with your pocket. the consumers have more control on the market than anyone. its just whether they are smart enough to do it.[/QUOTE]
Of course consumers are partly to blame. But that's an over-simplification. Especially focusing on Hummers, SUVs etc. Those are pricey cars. Those people can pay the higher gas bills without much though, just like I can (though I drive a Mazda3) as most people who own those kinds of cars are doing ok for themselves.
The impact is really felt on the poor family driving a couple of 10 year old cars to their jobs etc.
[quote name='Ruined']Just because you don't have as much money as they do? It is not easy to get super rich, and if they or their family earned the money legally they should not be forced to give it all away, since they are currently paying the majority of taxes out there even before you consider overtaxing them. [/QUOTE]
Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. I've laid out my reasons for why here already. And like I said, I know it's not popular. I'm not a 100% capitalist person. I'm for capitalism, but it has to be tinged with a bit of socialism for a society to be a decent place to live from a humanitarianism stand point IMO.
People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.
Of course consumers are partly to blame. But that's an over-simplification. Especially focusing on Hummers, SUVs etc. Those are pricey cars. Those people can pay the higher gas bills without much though, just like I can (though I drive a Mazda3) as most people who own those kinds of cars are doing ok for themselves.
The impact is really felt on the poor family driving a couple of 10 year old cars to their jobs etc.
[quote name='Ruined']Just because you don't have as much money as they do? It is not easy to get super rich, and if they or their family earned the money legally they should not be forced to give it all away, since they are currently paying the majority of taxes out there even before you consider overtaxing them. [/QUOTE]
Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. I've laid out my reasons for why here already. And like I said, I know it's not popular. I'm not a 100% capitalist person. I'm for capitalism, but it has to be tinged with a bit of socialism for a society to be a decent place to live from a humanitarianism stand point IMO.
People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. I've laid out my reasons for why here already. And like I said, I know it's not popular. I'm not a 100% capitalist person. I'm for capitalism, but it has to be tinged with a bit of socialism for a society to be a decent place to live from a humanitarianism stand point IMO.
People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.[/QUOTE]
So I should pay more because I took an opportunity that was given to me? I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.
People are naturally self interested and not enough of the well off will freely donate enough of their money to help the greater good. Thus we need taxes, and taxes should go up in percentage as people earn more and can afford to bear more burden.[/QUOTE]
So I should pay more because I took an opportunity that was given to me?
I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.[quote name='HuBu']So I should pay more because I took an opportunity that was given to me? I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Like I said I have a master's degree and will have a Ph D by this time next year.
I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.
But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk!
I am going to have to pay more just for paying attention in class in public school. Just because I made the choice to better myself doesn't mean that I should pay more in a way. Even with a flat percentage tax, I am still paying more. earning more does not mean that I can bear a greater burden.[/QUOTE]Yep. Like I said I have a master's degree and will have a Ph D by this time next year.
I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.
But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk!
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wait a second, weren't you the one practically celebrating high gas prices as a deterrent in another thread? Weren't you the one basically arguing that until the common man suffers at the pump, we can't get rid of oil? Now you want to argue that we should give relief to the common man for expensive gas?
The oil company's have not done anything wrong. So why should they be punished? Shouldn't punishment only be dished to people doing something wrong?
They are actually making very small margins of gasoline sales for automobiles. They have shifted so that they are charging more for their products for airplanes and other oil-based industries so that they don't have to raise gasoline prices super high (which is why oil prices can keep skyrocketing without making the prices at the pump slide up in-time with it)
Oil company's are also using a hell of a lot of that profit to find more and extract more oil. You paint a picture of a bunch of fat wealthy men laughing and giggling and rolling around in mountains of money. While there is nothing wrong with that, they also can't keep investing in their own business if you punish them. [/quote]
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. [/QUOTE]
I've come to realize that the real crux of my disagreement with you is this whole "society got me this, so I owe" mentality. I find it baffling. Society, in your examples, is the government, and the government didn't help any rich person get rich.
Nobody owes "society" money. It's ridiculous to say that successful people owe more because society got them there. That sort of thing echoes of Stallin.
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.[/quote]
Wait a second, weren't you the one practically celebrating high gas prices as a deterrent in another thread? Weren't you the one basically arguing that until the common man suffers at the pump, we can't get rid of oil? Now you want to argue that we should give relief to the common man for expensive gas?
The oil company's have not done anything wrong. So why should they be punished? Shouldn't punishment only be dished to people doing something wrong?
They are actually making very small margins of gasoline sales for automobiles. They have shifted so that they are charging more for their products for airplanes and other oil-based industries so that they don't have to raise gasoline prices super high (which is why oil prices can keep skyrocketing without making the prices at the pump slide up in-time with it)
Oil company's are also using a hell of a lot of that profit to find more and extract more oil. You paint a picture of a bunch of fat wealthy men laughing and giggling and rolling around in mountains of money. While there is nothing wrong with that, they also can't keep investing in their own business if you punish them. [/quote]
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Because society has afforded them the opportunity to get rich, they should pay a greater % of taxes on top of playin gthe majority because of their earnings. [/QUOTE]
I've come to realize that the real crux of my disagreement with you is this whole "society got me this, so I owe" mentality. I find it baffling. Society, in your examples, is the government, and the government didn't help any rich person get rich.
Nobody owes "society" money. It's ridiculous to say that successful people owe more because society got them there. That sort of thing echoes of Stallin.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Like I said I have a master's degree and will have a Ph D by this time next year.
I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.
But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk![/QUOTE]
The tax brackets gets higher the more you make. but that doesn't mean you I need to shell out extra money when it comes time to do my federal tax. Plus sometime, people make more money because the living expense of where they are living requires it.
I work in a company that has an office in miami and an office in st paul. living expensive in st paul is much lower than miami. so my pay might be more than a person in st paul, but that higher in pay doesnt mean that i m richer than that person in st paul does it? so if you pay more in taxes, that would actually make me poorer than that guy.
and yes i agree with you on the fact that this is place for us to talk among ourselves and waste time at work.
I've been afforded a lot of opportunities and I'm not going to complain about being in higher tax brackets because of that.
But this is an agree to disagree issue as conservatives like you aren't going to agree with it and a liberal like me isn't going to change my tune. Posts here are really for the handful of people who are in the middle--but unfortunately few of those people come to political forums so these things really are just nothing more than a place to kill time at work for those of us that like to here ourselves talk![/QUOTE]
The tax brackets gets higher the more you make. but that doesn't mean you I need to shell out extra money when it comes time to do my federal tax. Plus sometime, people make more money because the living expense of where they are living requires it.
I work in a company that has an office in miami and an office in st paul. living expensive in st paul is much lower than miami. so my pay might be more than a person in st paul, but that higher in pay doesnt mean that i m richer than that person in st paul does it? so if you pay more in taxes, that would actually make me poorer than that guy.
and yes i agree with you on the fact that this is place for us to talk among ourselves and waste time at work.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Wait a second, weren't you the one practically celebrating high gas prices as a deterrent in another thread? Weren't you the one basically arguing that until the common man suffers at the pump, we can't get rid of oil? Now you want to argue that we should give relief to the common man for expensive gas?
[/quote]
Nope that was someone else. I said in the thread I was ok with current prices and it's not a terrible idea to let them stay high enough to get people to drive less. But I said that there had to be limits on this and $5 bucks was about as high as I could go.
I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.
Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.
Government runs the education system, most universities are state schools ran on tax state funds. The government protects national security and keeps us safe so we can get rich. The government provides research grant funding that helps as academics make our name, get prominent and make bigger pay checks. This research improves the world, health breakthroughs, new inventions, better crime and other social policies and so forth. The list could go on and on etc. etc. The government does a lot of things to make the country a great place to live and to give people opportunities to succeed. Those of us who make it, should be willing to pay more of the burden to afford others the same chances.
Thus it's our duty (our being us successful or to be successful people) to help the less fortunate and to help younger generations succeed.
But yes, this is our fundamental disagreement with you being a libertarian for the most part and myself being very liberal with some socialist leanings. We'll never agree on these points, but I don't mind discussing them. Again, I like hearing myself talk, and maybe something we say will have some impact on people in the middle and younger folks who are less set in their beliefs. That is the true value of such discourse.
[/quote]
Nope that was someone else. I said in the thread I was ok with current prices and it's not a terrible idea to let them stay high enough to get people to drive less. But I said that there had to be limits on this and $5 bucks was about as high as I could go.
I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.
Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.
Government runs the education system, most universities are state schools ran on tax state funds. The government protects national security and keeps us safe so we can get rich. The government provides research grant funding that helps as academics make our name, get prominent and make bigger pay checks. This research improves the world, health breakthroughs, new inventions, better crime and other social policies and so forth. The list could go on and on etc. etc. The government does a lot of things to make the country a great place to live and to give people opportunities to succeed. Those of us who make it, should be willing to pay more of the burden to afford others the same chances.
Thus it's our duty (our being us successful or to be successful people) to help the less fortunate and to help younger generations succeed.
But yes, this is our fundamental disagreement with you being a libertarian for the most part and myself being very liberal with some socialist leanings. We'll never agree on these points, but I don't mind discussing them. Again, I like hearing myself talk, and maybe something we say will have some impact on people in the middle and younger folks who are less set in their beliefs. That is the true value of such discourse.
[quote name='HuBu']The tax brackets gets higher the more you make. but that doesn't mean you I need to shell out extra money when it comes time to do my federal tax. [/QUOTE]
But the higher brackets is what forces you to shell out more money in federal taxes. That's all I was saying. The percentages go up so people that make more pay a higher percentage of their income.
I wasn't suggesting any additional taxes, other than raising the percentages on the highest brackets back to, or above, the levels before the Bush cuts.
But the higher brackets is what forces you to shell out more money in federal taxes. That's all I was saying. The percentages go up so people that make more pay a higher percentage of their income.
I wasn't suggesting any additional taxes, other than raising the percentages on the highest brackets back to, or above, the levels before the Bush cuts.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Ruined']If they are super rich why should they be overtaxed? Just because you don't have as much money as they do?[/QUOTE]
In that case, wouldn't a dollar figure tax per head be the most fair, regardless of income?
In that case, wouldn't a dollar figure tax per head be the most fair, regardless of income?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Unless your libertarian or conservative and want it downsized period (regardless of whether it works and money is being spent well).
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So them.[/quote]
I'm a libertarian and you're a socialist.
IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.
If everybody played fair
lol::lol::lol, we wouldn't have this problem.
I have no problem with that at all. The Oil companies are making record profits year after year while people suffer through higher gas prices. They're not going to reduce profits and eat some cost to lower gas prices. They're going to sell it for as high as they can all the time. That's how capitalism works.
And that's my biggest gripe with capitalism. So I have no problem with the government socking them with a tax and giving an energy rebate to the people. It would be a different story if the oil companies were having dwindling profits and struggline as well. But they're not, they're greedily raking in record profits while consumers struggle. So
them.[/quote]I'm a libertarian and you're a socialist.
IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.
If everybody played fair
lol::lol::lol, we wouldn't have this problem.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']But the higher brackets is what forces you to shell out more money in federal taxes. That's all I was saying. The percentages go up so people that make more pay a higher percentage of their income.[/quote]
Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.
Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'] I'm a libertarian and you're a socialist.
[/quote]
I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I'm liberal with some socialist leanings. But far from totally socialist. For instance, I don't support universal health care for instance, but like Obama's plan of making it affordable for everyone etc.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.
[/QUOTE]
That's part of it for me as well. It's not just that they're making obscene profits, its the stuff you mentioned, that I think they're probably been some shady price gouging going on that involved them etc. that makes me support the Windfall profits tax. Not just their obscene earnings in and of themselves.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and that's a part of the flawed system that Obama says he'll address. Hopefully he wins and keeps his word. A lot of the revenue needed for his plans and getting the budget deficit paid down could come simply through closing loopholes etc. and limit the need for tax increases.
[/quote]
I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I'm liberal with some socialist leanings. But far from totally socialist. For instance, I don't support universal health care for instance, but like Obama's plan of making it affordable for everyone etc.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
IF the oil companies were doing nothing wrong while raking in their profits, I'd take you to task for it. It's their money. They earned it. Since the oil companies got government handouts and they are suppressing alternative energy, I can't really complain. It's their money, but they wouldn't have earned it without preferential treatments from the government and a government sitting on the sidelines while oil crushes alternatives.
[/QUOTE]
That's part of it for me as well. It's not just that they're making obscene profits, its the stuff you mentioned, that I think they're probably been some shady price gouging going on that involved them etc. that makes me support the Windfall profits tax. Not just their obscene earnings in and of themselves.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Except they don't pay a higher percentage of their income. They use loopholes and deductions.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and that's a part of the flawed system that Obama says he'll address. Hopefully he wins and keeps his word. A lot of the revenue needed for his plans and getting the budget deficit paid down could come simply through closing loopholes etc. and limit the need for tax increases.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Ruined']Personally I think a flat tax is the most fair. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of what they make to the government, rich or poor. The rich still will pay mountains of more money to the government than the poor will.[/QUOTE]
The irony of this? Taxes would go up for the rich and come down for the rest under your plan.
:lol:
The irony of this? Taxes would go up for the rich and come down for the rest under your plan.
:lol:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope that was someone else. I said in the thread I was ok with current prices and it's not a terrible idea to let them stay high enough to get people to drive less. But I said that there had to be limits on this and $5 bucks was about as high as I could go.[/quote]
I apologize then for thinking it was you.
I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.
Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.
I see. So your argument is mostly dealing with the education system being used for success. That sort of makes sense, especially if grants and/or scholarships were used.
What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society? Less? The same? Why should "paying back society" be a flat tax in the sense that not everyone used society equally to get where they were?
I apologize then for thinking it was you.
I don't view it as punishment. Just like I don't view having higher tax % brackets for higher earners as punishment. It's just carrying more of the burden in turn for their success.
Though I'd be shocked if their hasn't been some shady price gouging going on that the Oil companies are involved with, but that's just speculation at this point and off topic for this thread.
I see. So your argument is mostly dealing with the education system being used for success. That sort of makes sense, especially if grants and/or scholarships were used.
What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society? Less? The same? Why should "paying back society" be a flat tax in the sense that not everyone used society equally to get where they were?
I actually agree with this. Where I differ, obviously, is that I don't think it should be forced.
[quote name='thrustbucket']
What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society?
[/quote]
They still benefit from national security, law enforcement, the road system and all the other things that keep them safe, let them go to work, run a business or whatever. And benefit from their customers/employers having these benefits and being able to give them their patronage.
It's not just education, education is just the clearest example. And even if they didn't go to college, the probably benefited from the public education system--high school, vocational school etc. I can't imagine many go to private school and then don't go to college. But anyway, again it's just the best example of owing success to opportunities provided by society (which are there because of the government or resulting from our form of government).
Yep, we definitely disagree there. People suck. People are inherently self interested. Not enough well off people would give enough for the government (or third parties) to provide all the services I feel we need.
What if someone never went to college and hit it big? What do they owe society?
[/quote]
They still benefit from national security, law enforcement, the road system and all the other things that keep them safe, let them go to work, run a business or whatever. And benefit from their customers/employers having these benefits and being able to give them their patronage.
It's not just education, education is just the clearest example. And even if they didn't go to college, the probably benefited from the public education system--high school, vocational school etc. I can't imagine many go to private school and then don't go to college. But anyway, again it's just the best example of owing success to opportunities provided by society (which are there because of the government or resulting from our form of government).
Yep, we definitely disagree there. People suck. People are inherently self interested. Not enough well off people would give enough for the government (or third parties) to provide all the services I feel we need.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']They still benefit from national security, law enforcement, the road system and all the other things that keep them safe, let them go to work, run a business or whatever. And benefit from their customers/employers having these benefits and being able to give them their patronage.[/quote]
People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.
People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.[/QUOTE]
People such as slave owners, or JP Morgan who got his start from war profiteering. The point being the biggest time of shared prosperity (perhaps ever) was post New Deal.
People such as slave owners, or JP Morgan who got his start from war profiteering. The point being the biggest time of shared prosperity (perhaps ever) was post New Deal.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually agree with this. Where I differ, obviously, is that I don't think it should be forced.[/QUOTE]
Arguing "forced" or "not forced" is silly on the surface, for (1) the loaded language that "forced" carries, but also that (2) it's semantically set up for ambiguity but also an unwillingness to compromise.
But talk about a matter of degrees and nuances is different.
Should we pay higher taxes for, say, welfare, which keeps crime rates down, keeps families' heads above water while people search for work?
Should we pay higher taxes for, say, health care for all, so that nobody should feel that they can't "afford" to be healthy?
Should that health care we pay for include elective and cosmetic surgery too?
Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy and buy us all 160GB PS3s, since we can't afford a $500ing system?
Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy in order to pay their bills and also allow the working and lower classes to have enough money to pay for food? Rent? A mortgage? How about cable TV (with or without premium stations like HBO)?
That's where a more fruitful conversation lies. To act as if there are no direct or indirect benefits from higher taxation is incorrect; to get into the "forced" nature of it all is absurd.
But, most of all, give Ruined's flat tax suggestion, the argument that somehow the rich pay a larger % of their income (not their wealth, but just income) into the tax system is laughably wrong. Bring on the flat tax, and watch the conservatives shit their pants due to the inevitability of those at the top seeing tax increases, and those at the bottom suffer from tax decreases, that make Obama look like Neal Boortz by comparison.
EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).
Arguing "forced" or "not forced" is silly on the surface, for (1) the loaded language that "forced" carries, but also that (2) it's semantically set up for ambiguity but also an unwillingness to compromise.
But talk about a matter of degrees and nuances is different.
Should we pay higher taxes for, say, welfare, which keeps crime rates down, keeps families' heads above water while people search for work?
Should we pay higher taxes for, say, health care for all, so that nobody should feel that they can't "afford" to be healthy?
Should that health care we pay for include elective and cosmetic surgery too?
Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy and buy us all 160GB PS3s, since we can't afford a $500
ing system?Should the government take higher taxes from the wealthy in order to pay their bills and also allow the working and lower classes to have enough money to pay for food? Rent? A mortgage? How about cable TV (with or without premium stations like HBO)?
That's where a more fruitful conversation lies. To act as if there are no direct or indirect benefits from higher taxation is incorrect; to get into the "forced" nature of it all is absurd.
But, most of all, give Ruined's flat tax suggestion, the argument that somehow the rich pay a larger % of their income (not their wealth, but just income) into the tax system is laughably wrong. Bring on the flat tax, and watch the conservatives shit their pants due to the inevitability of those at the top seeing tax increases, and those at the bottom suffer from tax decreases, that make Obama look like Neal Boortz by comparison.
EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).
[quote name='mykevermin']
EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).[/QUOTE]
I don't see how you can argue that. The numbers are straight out of the IRS statistics which includes all income from all sources include capital gains, investments etc.. so everything that you are saying is included. The reason why the truth is simple because it actually is that straightforward. The rich, however you want to define them, do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, that's irrefutable.
EDIT: Of course it is, dopa. The wealthy pay a smaller % of their income than others; moreover, since they're more likely to grow their own wealth from non-income means than others (benefits, investments, stock options, etc.), your argument is oversimplified and misleading (or you're just telling the selective truth).[/QUOTE]
I don't see how you can argue that. The numbers are straight out of the IRS statistics which includes all income from all sources include capital gains, investments etc.. so everything that you are saying is included. The reason why the truth is simple because it actually is that straightforward. The rich, however you want to define them, do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, that's irrefutable.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I'm liberal with some socialist leanings. But far from totally socialist. For instance, I don't support universal health care for instance, but like Obama's plan of making it affordable for everyone etc.[/QUOTE]
Please, stop calling yourself a "liberal". This modern definition has been hammered into something of no resemblance to anything that stands for, or believes in, freedom. At least Myke freely admits to his collectivist philosophy. You, on the other hand, are either self-delusional, or just a sham as evidenced by the contradiction in the above statement.
Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?
Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.
Please, stop calling yourself a "liberal". This modern definition has been hammered into something of no resemblance to anything that stands for, or believes in, freedom. At least Myke freely admits to his collectivist philosophy. You, on the other hand, are either self-delusional, or just a sham as evidenced by the contradiction in the above statement.
Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?
Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.
dmaul's super dumb.
I really like this thread, though. Or, rather, that site.
This is cool: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
From that, I found it interesting that in fact the bottom 80% do better under Obama while the top 20% do better under McCain. Obama plans to collect 18.2% of the GDP and McCain plans to collect 17.6% of the GDP. I think those are the most important numbers in this.
I really like this thread, though. Or, rather, that site.
This is cool: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
From that, I found it interesting that in fact the bottom 80% do better under Obama while the top 20% do better under McCain. Obama plans to collect 18.2% of the GDP and McCain plans to collect 17.6% of the GDP. I think those are the most important numbers in this.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Neither Obama or McCain's tax plans have any basis in reality, period, end of story.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']People were successful in this country before the government controlled most of this.[/QUOTE]
Yes and it was largly because of as someone else said slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, the lack of having to pay for any health care or decent wages for their workers. The few small business that came up were largly lucky or hit on brilliant concepts.
The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.
Yes and it was largly because of as someone else said slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, the lack of having to pay for any health care or decent wages for their workers. The few small business that came up were largly lucky or hit on brilliant concepts.
The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']People such as slave owners, or JP Morgan who got his start from war profiteering. The point being the biggest time of shared prosperity (perhaps ever) was post New Deal.[/quote]
As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.
As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.
[quote name='bmulligan']
Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?
Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.[/QUOTE]
I have no respect for your political views and usually don't respond to your posts, but I will to this one briefly for the purpose of clarification.
I readily admit to all those flaws. As I said earlier, human's are entirely self interested beings. While I do make charitable contributions etc., if I wasn't taxed I wouldn't donate that level of money to the government or anyone else. I'm no more exempt from being self interested than the next guy.
That's why I support a graduated income tax system. People, myself included, are self interested and thus I think the income tax system is crucial for the government and social programs to get the money then need to do the things they have to do and the things I think they should do. There's no way in hell people would ever voluntarily give the amount of money they give in taxes. You think that's their right, but I think society would collapse if that were reality.
As for having choices of what to do with their money, if people want to make donations to charitable causes, they still can. And most are tax deductible. So it's the best of both worlds IMO. Self interested people have to "donate" money through taxes, and people who care can make donations themselves and write them off. You'll never accept it given your views, but again I think it's necassary for the greater good. A world where people have no responsibility to anyone but themselves is one I wouldn't want to live in. And that's the world we would have without taxes and a large government as it seems with each passing year people care less and less about others.
Just what is "society's burden"? You are. You, who would force free men into involuntary servitude to assuage your own guilt of neglecting the underprivileged. When you decide to open a private homeless shelter, or pay ten strangers' health insurance premiums with your PhD salary, you can then be judge and jury over the money I earn with my own two hands, and the wealth I create in my wake. Just remember that starving child you could feed with that NetFlix rental fee, or how many families you could help instead of drinking that snobby beer. Why should the rich be punished, or burdened, with the cost of building that new housing project when you're perfectly capable of picking up a hammer?
Since you enjoy your work and do it for it's own reward, you shouldn't mind giving up all your luxuries until everyone has been serviced according to their need. Until you submit to your principles and live by them, please stop claiming you have them.[/QUOTE]
I have no respect for your political views and usually don't respond to your posts, but I will to this one briefly for the purpose of clarification.
I readily admit to all those flaws. As I said earlier, human's are entirely self interested beings. While I do make charitable contributions etc., if I wasn't taxed I wouldn't donate that level of money to the government or anyone else. I'm no more exempt from being self interested than the next guy.
That's why I support a graduated income tax system. People, myself included, are self interested and thus I think the income tax system is crucial for the government and social programs to get the money then need to do the things they have to do and the things I think they should do. There's no way in hell people would ever voluntarily give the amount of money they give in taxes. You think that's their right, but I think society would collapse if that were reality.
As for having choices of what to do with their money, if people want to make donations to charitable causes, they still can. And most are tax deductible. So it's the best of both worlds IMO. Self interested people have to "donate" money through taxes, and people who care can make donations themselves and write them off. You'll never accept it given your views, but again I think it's necassary for the greater good. A world where people have no responsibility to anyone but themselves is one I wouldn't want to live in. And that's the world we would have without taxes and a large government as it seems with each passing year people care less and less about others.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']As unpleasant as it was, it was still legal.[/QUOTE]
But it is not now. Nor are the child labor laws and all the other stuff mentioned.
It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.
But it is not now. Nor are the child labor laws and all the other stuff mentioned.
It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']Yes and it was largly because of as someone else said slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, the lack of having to pay for any health care or decent wages for their workers. The few small business that came up were largly lucky or hit on brilliant concepts.
The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.[/quote]
If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners and there would be no rich people in Europe.
The reason the rich invest overseas is because overseas labor is cheaper. Put in tariffs like there were when business men were "patriots" and they'll suddenly start reinvesting in the US.
The problem with trickle down economics is that it'll seek the lowest point possible to collect.
In a "shrinking" world, that lowest point is a third world country.
The common man that did well over time was largly a result of government intervention and the fact that business men were patriots back then that atleast reinvested in the US and gave much to US Charity. As I said before, the rich now are selfish bastards that just reinvest over seas.[/quote]
If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners and there would be no rich people in Europe.
The reason the rich invest overseas is because overseas labor is cheaper. Put in tariffs like there were when business men were "patriots" and they'll suddenly start reinvesting in the US.
The problem with trickle down economics is that it'll seek the lowest point possible to collect.
In a "shrinking" world, that lowest point is a third world country.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners .....y.[/QUOTE]
Again, third world countries lack all the things our governments, governments in europe etc. provide for their people.
Thus they don't have the same opportunities for success. It's hard to achieve success if you aren't living in a safe place, have little access to health care, little or no education available etc. etc.
Again, third world countries lack all the things our governments, governments in europe etc. provide for their people.
Thus they don't have the same opportunities for success. It's hard to achieve success if you aren't living in a safe place, have little access to health care, little or no education available etc. etc.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']But it is not now. Nor are the child labor laws and all the other stuff mentioned.
It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.[/quote]
If government affords so many opportunities for people, why do some still fail so miserably? Why do generations of the same family cling to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder?
It's a different world now and in the current world people owe some of their success to all the things provided by the government that I listed before.[/quote]
If government affords so many opportunities for people, why do some still fail so miserably? Why do generations of the same family cling to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If government affords so many opportunities for people, why do some still fail so miserably? Why do generations of the same family cling to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder?[/QUOTE]
Just because opportunities are afforded doesn't mean everyone will seize them. It still takes desire to succeed and hard work. And also the government needs to do more and it's failing in many areas--such as low quality schools in many inner cities etc.
Providing more opportunties just means we (US, Europe etc.) have less poor and that most of or our poor are better off than in third world countries where the government doesn't afford it's citizen's the same opportunities. Not that poverty will ever be erased. That's not a feasible goal as at the end of the day you'll have some people who just don't want to work hard.
Just because opportunities are afforded doesn't mean everyone will seize them. It still takes desire to succeed and hard work. And also the government needs to do more and it's failing in many areas--such as low quality schools in many inner cities etc.
Providing more opportunties just means we (US, Europe etc.) have less poor and that most of or our poor are better off than in third world countries where the government doesn't afford it's citizen's the same opportunities. Not that poverty will ever be erased. That's not a feasible goal as at the end of the day you'll have some people who just don't want to work hard.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just because opportunities are afforded doesn't mean everyone will seize them. It still takes desire to succeed and hard work. And also the government needs to do more and it's failing in many areas--such as low quality schools in many inner cities etc.[/quote]
Is America as successful as it has ever been?
Is the government in control of its citizens' lives as much as it ever has?
Is America as successful as it has ever been?
Is the government in control of its citizens' lives as much as it ever has?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is America as successful as it has ever been?[/quote]
Unquestionably.
Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.
But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.
Unquestionably.
Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.
But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Unquestionably.
Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.
But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.[/quote]
Awww. I thought you would recognize Bush's reign as a step backwards for 80% of the people in this country. I guess Christmas isn't early this year.
I was going to argue that we were on the right side of a bell curve with a Y axis of personal success and a X axis of government control.
Probably so, but depends on who the citizen's are. Obviously blacks and women have many more rights now than in the past.
But I don't think that really gets into taxes and social programs. A lot of the "control" is stuff in the patriot act, FISA etc. that is an independent issue and are things I vehemently oppose.[/quote]
Awww. I thought you would recognize Bush's reign as a step backwards for 80% of the people in this country. I guess Christmas isn't early this year.
I was going to argue that we were on the right side of a bell curve with a Y axis of personal success and a X axis of government control.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If slave labor, lax labor laws, child labor, and poor pay and benefits were the secret to a successful business, third world countries would have the richest business owners and there would be no rich people in Europe.[/QUOTE]
First world corporations (and people) are the ones ultimately running the show and making money off of the exploitation, shocking I know.
Not really.
First world corporations (and people) are the ones ultimately running the show and making money off of the exploitation, shocking I know.
Not really.
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done