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.
Higher percentage? Why should someone who invests in a coal mine risking only money pay a lower percentage on what they 'earned' through that risk than a miner pays for what he earned risking his life?
If you seek to look at it from that angle why should the same investor in a coal mine pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes thanthe person working in it? Seems you are arguing for a flat tax?
And you fail to take into account that the capital used to invest in that mine was earned and taxed at some point and didn't just grow on a tree in the backyard.
Ian,
Define earned? At some point the income is earned through effort or risk.
Rather than worrying about how someone acquired capital why don't you explain why you think you have any claim to a higher percentage of it?
Please elaborate: effort or risk, ok. Where dies that 'income' come from? Where does it originate? How did the risk taker start? Describe their history..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietobserver
If you seek to look at it from that angle why should the same investor in a coal mine pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes thanthe person working in it? Seems you are arguing for a flat tax?
Can you document that investor paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the miner pays? And yes, I like the idea of a flat tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietobserver
And you fail to take into account that the capital used to invest in that mine was earned and taxed at some point and didn't just grow on a tree in the backyard.
So? The money I put in my bank account has already been taxed yet I'm taxed on the interest it earns as well. What's your point?
Higher percentage? Why should someone who invests in a coal mine risking only money pay a lower percentage on what they 'earned' through that risk than a miner pays for what he earned risking his life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian6479
Please elaborate: effort or risk, ok. Where dies that 'income' come from? Where does it originate? How did the risk taker start? Describe their history..
The simple point requires no details. Why do you feel you have a right to claim a higher or lower percentage of anyone income based on any of those factors?
Can you document that investor paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the miner pays? And yes, I like the idea of a flat tax.
So? The money I put in my bank account has already been taxed yet I'm taxed on the interest it earns as well. What's your point?
What is YOUR point?
As i asked the original poster why is it greedy for a persson to want to retain more of their own money? I think the opposite is true and the person who feels they have a right to claim a higher percentage of something earned by someone else displays actual greed.
...True, not all the extreme concepts of author/philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Milton Friedman have been implemented – there are still programs like Social Security and Medicare to get rid of – but their “magic of the market” should be glowing by now.
We should be able to assess whether laissez-faire capitalism is superior to the mixed public-private economy that dominated much of the 20th Century... .How Greed Destroys America | Consortiumnews
Not really too much to debate. The evidence is clear that the title of the article is factual.
Hardly factual. The portrayal of 20th cent history is way off the mark. Just look at 'tax freedom day'--the Tax Foundation's measure of how much overall tax burden is imposed on Americans. Tax Freedom Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The portrayal of the US as oriented to big government for "much of the 20th Century," and to laissez-faire after 1980 or so, is absurd. We had small gov't in 1900, and unrelenting growth of gov't ever since. Reagan may have slowed down the growth but he certainly did not stop it
By slashing income tax rates to historically low levels – and only slightly boosting them under President Clinton before dropping them again under George W. Bush – the U.S. government essentially incentivized greed or what Ayn Rand liked to call “the virtue of selfishness.”
Further, by encouraging global “free trade” and removing regulations like the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banks, the government also got out of the way of “progress,” even if that “progress” has had crushing results for many middle-class Americans.
True, not all the extreme concepts of author/philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Milton Friedman have been implemented – there are still programs like Social Security and Medicare to get rid of – but their “magic of the market” should be glowing by now.
We should be able to assess whether laissez-faire capitalism is superior to the mixed public-private economy that dominated much of the 20th Century.
The old notion was that a relatively affluent middle class would contribute to the creation of profitable businesses because average people could afford to buy consumer goods, own their own homes and take an annual vacation with the kids. That “middle-class system,” however, required intervention by the government as the representative of the everyman.
Beyond building a strong infrastructure for growth – highways, airports, schools, research programs, a safe banking system, a common defense, etc. –the government imposed a progressive tax structure that helped pay for these priorities and also discouraged the accumulation of massive wealth.
After all, the threat to a healthy democracy from concentrated wealth had been known to American leaders for generations.
Not really too much to debate. The evidence is clear that the title of the article is factual.
What I find amazing is the peculiar psychology that the rightwing has imbued in their followers that this is an "American" virtue, that "greed is good", and millions of working poor and unemployed who struggle mightily whilst the richest 1% of Americans sit back and laugh is something poor white trash should heartily endorse.
You have to use something other than common sense to convince millions of Americans to vote against their own best interests and to remain destitute and living paycheck to paycheck so that they can pay twice the annual rate in income tax than the richest 1%. "Patriotism" and "Freedom" are what are usually substituted for common sense, that the richest should "keep what they earn" even though they pay, per capita, less in taxes than someone who is living paycheck to paycheck.
You need to infuse them with copious amounts of rightwing propaganda, as well as keeping them uninformed, compliant, and only allowing anger if directed at those who expose this economic injustice and disparity.
And it works! You can get your Joe Sixpack to leave his double wide and go to a Tea Party rally and scream at the top of his lungs at the "threat" of "wealth redistribution", while the 1% raise a toast to one another at the Dumbing Down of America.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietobserver
The simple point requires no details. Why do you feel you have a right to claim a higher or lower percentage of anyone income based on any of those factors?
WHERE did I ever say such a thing?
You're the one who's alleged the investor pays a higher percentage with nothing offered as proof.
On the other hand, once you get to be rich, you can manipulate the tax code to your own advantage and receive millions of dollars a year without really working. And the government protects that generous handout to the wealthy.
Very true..just look at the member in Congress for examples of how to manipulate to their advantage.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietobserver
What is YOUR point?
As i asked the original poster why is it greedy for a persson to want to retain more of their own money? I think the opposite is true and the person who feels they have a right to claim a higher percentage of something earned by someone else displays actual greed.
Try and keep up. WHERE is anyone suggesting a higher percentage? The question is why should some pay a lower percentage?
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.
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.
