U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,114,306 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Wealth Redistribution might be an inappropriate term in your eyes, but either way the retirement wealth of those contributing to the system is reduced to increase the retirement wealth of those who contributed little or nothing. Who is to say that people in need wouldn't be taken care of without government? For 150 years SS and Medicare didn't exist and masses of old people weren't dying in the streets.
This statement is definately a false statement.... history says otherwise

And times are different now then they were then. Again.. middle income and especially low income families do not have discretionary income to sak away for retirement. Even with social security and what little retirement they have, they struggle. Cost of living has far outpaced income for many years with inflation.

My parents are middle income. My mom has a 401K and she'll collect my father SS when she retires (my father is deceased). And with that SS income and her small 401K that they spent many years putting into (raised and college educated three children) she'll get by. If she had to retire on what she was able to put away into a 401K alone she'd be out on the street or I'd be forced then to not only support my mother in addition to my kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:33 AM
 
Location: CO
1,599 posts, read 3,006,954 times
Reputation: 488
I think the general view from many in the middle and lower classes is that the upper class benefits the most from the system, therefore they should contribute the most. At what point is it a matter of living in excess anyway?

Nobody likes the idea of limiting ones income potential or being punished for achievement. But let's be realistic here. We all know that the rich find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. They have the means to employ tactics that will keep them from having to pay all of the high taxes that are required of them. Not only that, but the rich also have the means to be influential when it comes to legislation that will protect their finances. A lot of money is spent to find ways to pay a smaller percentage of their income to the government. Money is a powerful tool to have at your disposal and I'm sure most of them use it to their advantage quite well.

So is it fair? On the surface it appears to conflict with the foundation on which America was built upon. But in the end many will feel it's justified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,114,306 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Wealth Redistribution might be an inappropriate term in your eyes, but either way the retirement wealth of those contributing to the system is reduced to increase the retirement wealth of those who contributed little or nothing. Who is to say that people in need wouldn't be taken care of without government? For 150 years SS and Medicare didn't exist and masses of old people weren't dying in the streets.
One thing you are leaving out..

Those in higher tax brackets acquire much more wealth beyond what they contribute to the system. THey ahve much more discretionary income in which to build larger retirement wealth from.. most probably do not even need their SS check .. although they , of course, should still get it. While a vast majority of the middle income does need their SS check to survive as there is not enough discretionary income to have put away from retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:42 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,434,358 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
I think the general view from many in the middle and lower classes is that the upper class benefits the most from the system, therefore they should contribute the most. At what point is it a matter of living in excess anyway?

Nobody likes the idea of limiting ones income potential or being punished for achievement. But let's be realistic here. We all know that the rich find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. They have the means to employ tactics that will keep them from having to pay all of the high taxes that are required of them. Not only that, but the rich also have the means to be influential when it comes to legislation that will protect their finances. A lot of money is spent to find ways to pay a smaller percentage of their income to the government. Money is a powerful tool to have at your disposal and I'm sure most of them use it to their advantage quite well.

So is it fair? On the surface it appears to conflict with the foundation on which America was built upon. But in the end many will feel it's justified.
"What I am suggesting is that communists gravitate towards political parties that see no wrong in enforcing edicts via state control. I am also suggesting that people with authoritarian tendencies will never come out and directly say that they want to run your life. They’ll tell you to support some piece of legislation in the name of fairness, or the environment, or safety, or the children, or "our" future, or humanitarian intervention, or national security."

A Layman's Look at the Communist Manifesto

I couldn't say it any better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,114,306 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
"What I am suggesting is that communists gravitate towards political parties that see no wrong in enforcing edicts via state control. I am also suggesting that people with authoritarian tendencies will never come out and directly say that they want to run your life. They’ll tell you to support some piece of legislation in the name of fairness, or the environment, or safety, or the children, or "our" future, or humanitarian intervention, or national security."

A Layman's Look at the Communist Manifesto

I couldn't say it any better.

That doesn't neccesarily mean that we are headed to communism if we believe that..

Because things are NOT set in this motion by one party or one person stating that and having the rest believe it.

We are democratic republic. No one person or party will rule. The people will ultimately decide what is fair and what is too intrusive...

It's why we have checks and balances set up in our democratic system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:47 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,434,358 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
That doesn't neccesarily mean that we are headed to communism if we believe that..

Because things are NOT set in this motion by one party or one person stating that and having the rest believe it.

We are democratic republic. No one person or party will rule. The people will ultimately decide what is fair and what is too intrusive...

It's why we have checks and balances set up in our democratic system.
You saw the 10 items correct?

We are only missing 1 of them:

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Obama has something for that one though.

You do understand these ideas were set in motion over 100 years ago....

What we are seeing is latent Marxism. Even Marx himself would tell you Socialism won't work unless it's 100% pure. Otherwise your in a utopia.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:48 AM
 
Location: mass
2,905 posts, read 6,422,327 times
Reputation: 4967
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
There would be no need as that would shutdown the majority of American jobs. You'd see massive amount of small business' disappear.

If the ratio were equal 12.5% of the tax burden would fall on the lower 50%.
I was just working that ratio out in my head....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Ft. Wayne, In
1 posts, read 1,142 times
Reputation: 10
Perhaps if Mr. Rich man thinks it is unfair he could give some of his money to the poor and get himself into a lower tax rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,374,882 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
One cannot opt out of SS.
Yes you can - and millions have, including myself. I have not had to pay into SS for over 3 decades.

Yes - they do put you under that microscope you mention - but as I said - millions have been willing to go through the process -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,114,306 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
You saw the 10 items correct?

We are only missing 1 of them:

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Obama has something for that one though.

You do understand these ideas were set in motion over 100 years ago....

What we are seeing is latent Marxism. Even Marx himself would tell you Socialism won't work unless it's 100% pure. Otherwise your in a utopia.
It's ramblings of an extreme right agenda...

I believe preservation of land IS important.. if we didn't have it we wouldn't have yellowstone national park, we'd have the extinction of far many more species without government protection. We all also get to enjoy that government owned land by visiting national parks preserved for us to see it in it's natural state before man gets to destroy it.

Public education is extremely important. All homeowners pay property taxes for their home and everyones children gets the opportunity to be educated so that they may raise their class status. If you had it your way only those that can "afford" education outright would be educated.. and we'd be right back to the good old days where a lot of people are uneducated becaues they can't afford a good education.

You can't ask someone to pay a "flat tax" of say $500 a person or any fixed amount.. all paying equal.. see the marginal utility post ..because I'm not going to keep posting it over and over again. Food should not be taken from someone's mouth to fund government.. THAt is why we have the tax structure we do..

Again.. that whole page just wreaks of "consipiracey" theory nonsense.. so many points in that manifesto are just completely fasle and twisted and do not exist in our current system
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top