U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,439 posts, read 13,491,325 times
Reputation: 4690

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Why Should The Rich Pay MORE?


A famous bank robber, when asked why he kept robbing banks, replied, "Because that's where the money is!"

Liberals (in both parties) want "The Rich" to pay more, for the same reason.

The only difference between the liberals and the bank robber, was that the bank robber honestly admitted he was committing robbery.
If you want more from government, somebody has to pay for it. If you want less, good luck getting a tax cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:34 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,964 posts, read 3,467,923 times
Reputation: 2958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
When politicians say that the rich should pay more in taxes I ask pay more for what reason?

When you look at the democrats who are running for president. They all want medicare-for-all and some form of free college. These things would require more taxation. But many Americans disagree with these things and the higher taxes that will come with them. So should the rich be paying more in taxes just to provide more funding for things many Americans disagree with? Aren't the rich paying enough taxes to cover our current government services and programs?
Bc our economy runs and grows based on the circulation of money. The higher your rate of taking money out of circulation, the higher you should be taxed.

A poor person making $20k is going to spend almost 100% of that money in the economy, mostly their local economy. That grows the economy.

A well off person making $200k is going to spend 60-70% of that money in the economy, the rest is taken out on the form of savings, retirement funding, putting money aside for college etc

A rich person making $500k is spending an even smaller percentage of their money in the economy, taking a bigger % out.

The end result is that, in general, the more money an individual makes the more harm they do to the economy bc they are more likely to take money out of circulation.

The only way we have to offset that damages is to tax the money they do earn at a higher rate OR to incentivize them to invest that money into the economy with negative tax rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:09 AM
 
Location: *
8,177 posts, read 2,471,492 times
Reputation: 2260
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I can see you still don't understand what "in proportion to" means.

Let's recap... it's ninth grade math.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/proportions.html

Adam Smith advocates a flat tax rate. That is, everyone pays the same percent. Just like the rope example... at a 12% flat tax rate:

A $50,000 earner pays $6,000
A $500,000 earner pays $60,000

That's in proprtion.
I see you're still attempting to resurrect Ayn Rand's punctured ideologies. How unusual.

Quote:
I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went:

Roses are red/violets are blue/finish this poem yourself/you dependent parasite.

~Stephen Colbert
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:43 AM
 
4,425 posts, read 4,654,512 times
Reputation: 3880
The rich should get another big tax cut and the half of working Americans who pay no income tax should get their tax credits removed so they start paying some tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:02 AM
 
67,018 posts, read 30,706,792 times
Reputation: 8767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I see you're still attempting to resurrect Ayn Rand's punctured ideologies. How unusual.
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:09 AM
 
37,809 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8572
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
A national sales tax ONLY!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:15 AM
 
Location: *
8,177 posts, read 2,471,492 times
Reputation: 2260
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Is that where you redefined ( & how libertarian of you! ) the common meaning of 'ability' to mean the same thing as 'income'?

Lefty Cartoons » Blog Archive » The 24 Types of Libertarian

Also ...

Argumentum Ad Nauseam:

Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.

Excellent list of logical fallacies:

GeekPress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:34 AM
 
67,018 posts, read 30,706,792 times
Reputation: 8767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Is that where you redefined ( & how libertarian of you! ) the common meaning of 'ability' to mean the same thing as 'income'?
Those with the "ability" to earn more actually DO pay more with a flat tax rate that is "in proportion."

To recap, your Adam Smith quote:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”

― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

I then explained the meaning of proportion (which is basic algebra, 9th grade math) to you, using an example and citing a source:

Quote:
Example: Rope

A rope's length and weight are in proportion when 20m of rope weighs 1kg, then:
40m of that rope weighs 2kg
200m of that rope weighs 10kg
etc.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/proportions.html

Adam Smith advocates a flat tax rate. That is, everyone pays the same percent. Just like the rope example... at a 12% flat tax rate:

A $50,000 earner pays $6,000
A $500,000 earner pays $60,000

That's "in proprtion to" while also meeting the qualification of one paying MUCH more than the other, such as their "ability" allows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,702 posts, read 20,270,319 times
Reputation: 8487
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Completely false!

80% of rich people are first generation and self made.
70% of rich people will lose their wealth by the third generation.
90% of rich people will lose their wealth by the fourth generation.

There’s little generational wealth but there are plenty of generational poverty mostly from people making poor choices.


Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95 percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE. Twenty one percent inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger, what UFE calls being “born on home plate.” Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a “large and prosperous company,” 12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from a relative, and 22 percent were “born on first base,” into an upper class family or got a modest inheritance or startup capital (UFE says it was conservative in assigning people to bases, so its report understates their advantages somewhat). So, at least 62 percent did not, in fact, make their fortunes “entirely from scratch.”

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/m...om_scratch.php
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,702 posts, read 20,270,319 times
Reputation: 8487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Since when does every millionaire bribe and manipulate? You're upset because they work harder and smarter than you and get rewarded for it? Yea don't want to reward people for hard work nowadays right? Free market be damned.

Not really.

Is a CEO 271 times smarter than a line worker?

Do they work 271 times harder?
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

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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