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.
You like to be a logical guy right? Earlier you said I believe:
"Screw them and their good luck, eh? None of them earned it after all, so wtf cares if we (the State) simply take it all back to pay for stuff those without all that luck need?"
So now you explain to me, why in the f*** would I be hostile to people who have benefited from luck when a few posts up I talked about how I personally have benefited massively from luck? Christ just admitting the reality that luck is a huge part in becoming wealthy in most cases translates to "hostility" - no that is called being a realist.
1) Your argument is a guilt by association attempt at an appeal to emotion. Because you believe your success is based on luck, therefore all success for all people is based on luck, and because millionaires are lucky (indirectly assisting the person I was replying to that you quoted) then they should be taxed more.
2) This tread topic is about "why should the rich pay more" and I was replying to someone else who said they'd be happy to pay more taxes if they were "fortunate enough" to be a millionaire. My reply was two parts: 1) and if you did end up paying so much that you were no longer a millionaire, how would you feel about taxes at that point, and 2) being a millionaire is not about good fortune, it is about behavior and choices.
You chose to join the side I was replying to, in defense of the concept of luck as the basis for success, and in the larger argument, it is a bullet point to the central debate theme - should rich people pay more simply because rich. My analysis of that jump to defend the concept that "millionaire = lucky" is that you have a political belief that is borne from hostility, and that hostility is based on ignorance. I stand by that analysis.
3) Your argument that "because me, then all" is illogical and invalid.
4) Back to the central debate point - taxes are immoral generally, but become downright evil when used as a punishment for being successful. It is social engineering based on coveting, jealousy, envy and ignorance.
If I get a raise that ours me into a higher income bracket I have to pay more taxes. So why shouldn’t the rich have too? What makes them special?
You show your ignorance about taxes when you make a statement like this. The highest brackets are on the rich. Our system is progressive. The higher you go, the more you pay. If you make most of your income through salary, bonus and stock options, you pay full fare. That means as your income goes higher, you get closer and closer to paying the highest bracket rate of 37%. I GUARANTEE, you are paying nowhere near that high of a rate.
Holy crap I haven't said a single word about income redistribution, taxes or anything. I simply recognized the reality that luck is the most important factor in becoming wealthy and people can't wait to put words in my mouth and assume I am poor.
I am fine with the tiered graduated scale we already have, you should never make "less" money than you currently do by making one more dollar but some level of diminishing returns is fine.
You make more money than other people not through work but through nothing but luck, so why do you deserve more?
1) Your argument is a guilt by association attempt at an appeal to emotion. Because you believe your success is based on luck, therefore all success for all people is based on luck, and because millionaires are lucky (indirectly assisting the person I was replying to that you quoted) then they should be taxed more.
2) This tread topic is about "why should the rich pay more" and I was replying to someone else who said they'd be happy to pay more taxes if they were "fortunate enough" to be a millionaire. My reply was two parts: 1) and if you did end up paying so much that you were no longer a millionaire, how would you feel about taxes at that point, and 2) being a millionaire is not about good fortune, it is about behavior and choices.
You chose to join the side I was replying to, in defense of the concept of luck as the basis for success, and in the larger argument, it is a bullet point to the central debate theme - should rich people pay more simply because rich. My analysis of that jump to defend the concept that "millionaire = lucky" is that you have a political belief that is borne from hostility, and that hostility is based on ignorance. I stand by that analysis.
3) Your argument that "because me, then all" is illogical and invalid.
4) Back to the central debate point - taxes are immoral generally, but become downright evil when used as a punishment for being successful. It is social engineering based on coveting, jealousy, envy and ignorance.
Behavior and choices are factors in becoming wealthy, just as luck is. But if you have a bad dice roll on your luck, your behavior and choices can be completely negated as stepping stones to wealth. It is the overriding factor. In reverse, you could have terrible behavior and choices, and be born into a family with 10's of billions of dollars and then your behavior and choices don't matter, you are still rich.
The argument is universally applicable because at its core, the culture you are born into (which is luck) is the #1 most important factor in the availability of the kind of opportunities it takes to become wealthy. This is undeniable and it is your first dice roll.
My argument was never "because me, then all" that is a strawman of my position.
My points are entirely related to luck's impact on the chance to become wealthy, which is logically unrelated to how your society will tax the people who are wealthy.
Holy crap I haven't said a single word about income redistribution, taxes or anything. I simply recognized the reality that luck is the most important factor in becoming wealthy and people can't wait to put words in my mouth and assume I am poor.
I am fine with the tiered graduated scale we already have, you should never make "less" money than you currently do by making one more dollar but some level of diminishing returns is fine.
You don't. This NEVER happens. You don't understand how marginal tax brackets work. You don't pay 100% of the higher bracket on ALL of your income when you go up to a new bracket. You pay it only on that $1. And you should learn a little bit about how taxes work before posting an idiotic comment like this on a public forum.
You make more money than other people not through work but through nothing but luck, so why do you deserve more?
"Deserve" doesn't matter only reality. A guy who bought a bunch of bitcoin when it was cheap on a whim and ended up a multi millionaire did basically no work for his money, but the reality is he owns it. Who cares about "deserve" it is a completely useless subjective argument.
You don't. This NEVER happens. You don't understand how marginal tax brackets work. You don't pay 100% of the higher bracket on ALL of your income when you go up to a new bracket. You pay it only on that $1. And you should learn a little bit about how taxes work before posting an idiotic comment like this on a public forum.
...
Can you people please take a sec and make sure you are comprehending the post you are responding to before posting idiotic replies.
"Deserve" doesn't matter only reality. A guy who bought a bunch of bitcoin when it was cheap on a whim and ended up a multi millionaire did basically no work for his money, but the reality is he owns it. Who cares about "deserve" it is a completely useless subjective argument.
He took a risk spending money he worked to earn on those bitcoins.
You act like he was walking down the street and found a bag of bitcoins.
If you argue the primary reason you receive a good income is due to luck, it wouldn't be fair you have more than the drug addict on the corner.
Are you splitting your income with those who aren't lucky like you or are you hoarding it to yourself like those rich guys who also relied on little more than luck?
I'd hate to see hypocrisy here if you are hoarding your luck.
He took a risk spending money ge worked to earn on those bitcoins.
You act like he was walking down the street and found a bag of bitcoins.
He bought it, but there was 0 garauntee or even likelyhood at the time it would blow up the way it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
If you argue the primary reason you receive a good income is due to luck, it wouldn't be fair you have more than the drug addict on the corner.
Life isn't fair buttercup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Are you splitting your income with those who aren't lucky like you or are you hoarding it to yourself like those rich guys who also relued on little more than luck?
I'd hate to see hypocrisy here if you aree hoarding your luck.
Life isn't fair buttercup.
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.
