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.
Oh... I think "he" grasps. It is truly unfortunate that focusing on the fixation on others' wealth and property rights is irksome. But that fixation is a common crutch for "progressive" politicians to exploit.
I think "he" is willing to discuss the basis in envy that class warfare "progressive" wealth seizure depends on for "progressive" politicians to prosper.
Yes, "he" understands the effectiveness of clinical devaluation of another's assets through promotion of the concept of "marginal value." That "he" doesn't readily accept casual acceptance of the theft of wealth that has been "marginalized" for redistribution to buy votes does not indicate otherwise.
I think "he" grasps the concept well.
(Jeeze, "he" feels like a linebacker with an 8th grade education, using the third person to discuss "himself." )
Taxation schemes provide vote-buying platforms. Efficient vote buying depends on enough voters believing that "someone else with more will foot the bill," and "marginal valuation" is a useful euphemism employed when supporting class warfare.
(Actually, in an Orwellian way, I really like the term, and its effective subtlety, to dehumanize individuals, devalue groups, and to depersonalize their wealth and their right to any of that wealth. It is appropriate in discussion regarding covetous contempt of others' wealth as a rationalization for self-righteous seizure.)
Without triggering and harnessing the envy and covetousness inherent in "someone else with more will pay," a graduated tax could not survive. It must be promoted as "making the rich pay their fair share."
There are two ways for a politician to buy votes to attempt to stay in power:
1. Throw enough money to corporate interests to garner "trickle-down" support.
2. Spread less money per vote among those who envy what others have to convince them that someone else will pay.
The second is commonly more economically productive/successful, and one reason radical fundamentalist votes are important to fiscal conservatives. Trickle-down vote buying is less effective than envy-based vote buying.
Neither vote buying scheme has much to commend it, but the fact is, votes are for sale to the highest bidder, and the best bang for the buck for the power hungry "progressive" is based on promised wealth transfer fueled by envy.
Congratulations on beating the materialism virus.
Me too.
Personally, I believe I have also licked the pernicious envy and covetousness bug.
I have liberated myself via that victory, and accept that some folks have much more wealth than I can imagine, and that I am blessed with a little more wealth than some have.
I recognize that some folks handle money differently from how I would.
But as long as they don't espouse overuse of the thuggery of government to marginalize and seize what little wealth I do have, let them have designer dogs, and ringtones, and tattoos, and designer clothes, and jewelry, and sports cars, etc. Thank goodness they are creating jobs through spending. That is much better than forfeiture of wealth for vote buying, IMO.
I support their right to make those choices.
It is not my business what is in their pockets.
It is MY business what is in MY pocket.
That is one of the very real hurdles for The Fair Tax: Reduction of knowledge to prying and envious eyes of what wealth others may have.
Privacy is a threat to the need to marginalize and seize.
So, again to the OP's original question:
No, it is not fair.
Yes, it is fair.
Either answer can be somewhat "right." Defending either answer is not simple and not always pretty.
That is what makes it a great question.
You still don't get it..
You are stuck on "envy" and it's all about envy.
NO>. what it is about .. plain and simple.. is that you can't get what you need to run the country from those that don't have it!! THAT is why there is a progressive tax.
How do you propose we fund the military among only some of the things that governement funds. The "fair tax" is hardly fair at all!!! 23% tax on goods ABOVE what we pay! Come on.. to someone paying 3% of thier income because they are in a lower tax bracket because to pay more than that would take food off their table, sudddenly having to pay 23% for everything just doesn't make ANY Sense..
The cactus will be squeezed dry and left to die.. the money for government will be insufficient to do all that government does and the U.S will fall into third world status!
Are you envious that people who have less are paying less? Would it make you feel better if the families in the lower bracket give up eating for a month so that they can contribute what you deem as "fair share"?
I don't worry about what others are or aren't paying. I pay my taxes, whatever they happen to be for me because I understand that taxes are what is needed to keep this country going.
THAT is NOT saying that the government isnt spending frivolously.. they are.. and THAT angers me.. not that the person next to me doesn't have to pay in as much as I do.
You want to be angry at something.. be angry at the fact that the money you do give the gov't is going to fight a war we shouldn't be in. Be angry that they dole out money for corporate bail outs left and right.. corporations that were living high on the hog with million dollar bonuses for their CEO's.. be angry at corporate welfare.. be angry at that. If the government didn't do any of that perhaps everyones tax burdens would be a lot less.
To be so upset that someone who barely scrapes by and is happy with just the food on the table doesn't have to pay as much as you is just quite silly. I certainly wouldn't mind being in a higher tax bracket. .. actually I'm working to get there even if that means I pay more than the person next to me.
Would you be envious of a homeless person whom someone walked up to a gave a sandwich to.. simply because that person didn't have to pay for said sandwich?
The point of my post was to illustrate that the progressive tax doesn't exist out of any sort of "envy" or wealth redistribution. It simply exists because there is a certain amount of funds needed for government and you have to go to where those funds are more readily available... just like you would turn to the ocean for water rather than a desert or a small lake if the amount needed far exceeds the dessert and the lakes ability to provide.
Please excuse the lengthy post, but I couldn't convey my thoughts without doing so.
Your analogy was quite thoughtful and convincing, however, I believe it is incomplete and a bit flawed. Please allow me to explain.
The first flaw in your analogy, assuming that you’re equating a lack of water with a lack of resources and/or money to live, is that no one is “dry” but can better be analogized as being low on water, IMO. Since these are the “working poor”, the water they are currently consuming either from cacti or the oasis is enough to sustain themselves but certainly not enough to save for a dry spell and may be drying up because they failed to recognize the dangers of consuming water without planning for increased future needs. So, they have a few options, as you described, to sustain themselves and store for future use. One other flaw, as I see it, is the analogy of the river that would dry up if too much water was taken from it. In most cases rivers are supplied constant water from other sources, i.e. upriver streams and rainfall. In your analogy I believe this could be better considered those who are wealthy through no effort of their own, i.e. inheritances, silver-spooned children. Considering this, let’s analogize the middle class as having small ponds instead.
Basically I just think this "fair tax" will put an extremely heavy burden on teh working poor and middle class..when suddently EVERYTHING will cost 25% more (and as sanginista pointed out.. that number is not the true number).
Now, other than the river communities, we can assume that the ponds, lakes, and oceans, in most cases were created from the efforts of these communities, i.e. drilling wells, storing rainwater, and good planning. So, when evaluating where would be best to get more water, the “dry” communities approach the governing body with their plan and suggest they force all communities to chip in but that the ocean communities should provide the highest percentage of water for them since they have the most and can most afford to lose a bit of it. The ocean communities, in response, are willing to help the dry communities by showing them how to drill wells and store rainwater and even voluntarily offer to provide some additional water to them to help until they can reap the benefits of their new-found knowledge even though a portion of the oceans have been used to provide water to all of the communities up to this point. But, not knowing their own future needs, the ocean communities do not want to be permanently responsible for making sure the current dry communities have a constant flow of water since they have the ability of creating their own ponds and lakes, if not oceans.
The dry communities, claiming that they have done the best they could with what knowledge they had, decide it would be much easier to have the governing body force the ocean communities to provide a constant flow of water than to learn to drill their own wells and store their own rainwater efficiently, regardless of the future needs of the ocean communities and the efforts they put into creating the oceans to provide for themselves. The governing body realizes that they could keep a bit of extra water for themselves by administering this process, though they themselves live in the lake and ocean communities, and not be affected by the mandate. They agree with the dry communities and implement their request.
This, IMO, is a better analogy for a progressive tax system. The Fair Tax would allow all of the communities, including the river communities, the discretion of providing water to all of the other communities with little being administered by the governing body. Also added to the mix would be those lake and pond communities who had moved away (companies who moved offshore) because they were being forced to provide what little they had to the dry communities. These would be able to move back since they realized that the lands they moved to weren’t requiring them to provide water to dry areas but water wasn’t as abundant. The Fair Tax would also require rogue communities that were hoarding water, unknown to the governing body (the underground economy) to participate in the process of making certain everyone could have water, could store some for dry periods, and even have the opportunity to develop into ocean communities.
Wow.. LOL.. well .. you have made it more complex. and went a little deeper than my intended post was meant to illustrate. AND I get what you're saying..
But here's the thing... those that have want to talk about "planning" .. which I'm assuming is learning to better budget money or take your money and grow it. But that is NOT as easy as you want it to be or make it sound to be and here's why.
Let's take a working poor person, for example. They work at a fixed rate. Their job is wht it is ... they do not really have the ability to make any more than they are making. Some even have 2 jobs to get what they are making..there is only so much time in the day. They have their bills to pay that have to be paid.. and they carry balances on bills because there is not enough money to cover them all monthly.. kind of just pay one when yuou can..let the other ring up.. etc. It's a pattern. It is very difficult to "plan" when there is nothing to plan with.
My post didn't mean to go so deep as to where you brought it.. it was more illustrating that it's not based on "envy" the progressive tax.. it's simply based on the fact that you get what you need from where you have it the most. The "need" being the government funding.
What the "fair tax" code says to me is that in the end, those with the least will be asked to pay more than they can bear. All the lessons in how to manage your money is great, but you need money to manage and there just isn't enough at the end of the day for people to grow etc.
Last edited by TristansMommy; 09-18-2008 at 09:08 AM..
NO>. what it is about .. plain and simple.. is that you can't get what you need to run the country from those that don't have it!! THAT is why there is a progressive tax.
How do you propose we fund the military among only some of the things that governement funds. The "fair tax" is hardly fair at all!!! 23% tax on goods ABOVE what we pay! Come on.. to someone paying 3% of thier income because they are in a lower tax bracket because to pay more than that would take food off their table, sudddenly having to pay 23% for everything just doesn't make ANY Sense..
The cactus will be squeezed dry and left to die.. the money for government will be insufficient to do all that government does and the U.S will fall into third world status!
Are you envious that people who have less are paying less? Would it make you feel better if the families in the lower bracket give up eating for a month so that they can contribute what you deem as "fair share"?
I don't worry about what others are or aren't paying. I pay my taxes, whatever they happen to be for me because I understand that taxes are what is needed to keep this country going.
THAT is NOT saying that the government isnt spending frivolously.. they are.. and THAT angers me.. not that the person next to me doesn't have to pay in as much as I do.
You want to be angry at something.. be angry at the fact that the money you do give the gov't is going to fight a war we shouldn't be in. Be angry that they dole out money for corporate bail outs left and right.. corporations that were living high on the hog with million dollar bonuses for their CEO's.. be angry at corporate welfare.. be angry at that. If the government didn't do any of that perhaps everyones tax burdens would be a lot less.
To be so upset that someone who barely scrapes by and is happy with just the food on the table doesn't have to pay as much as you is just quite silly. I certainly wouldn't mind being in a higher tax bracket. .. actually I'm working to get there even if that means I pay more than the person next to me.
Would you be envious of a homeless person whom someone walked up to a gave a sandwich to.. simply because that person didn't have to pay for said sandwich?
The point of my post was to illustrate that the progressive tax doesn't exist out of any sort of "envy" or wealth redistribution. It simply exists because there is a certain amount of funds needed for government and you have to go to where those funds are more readily available... just like you would turn to the ocean for water rather than a desert or a small lake if the amount needed far exceeds the dessert and the lakes ability to provide.
1. The Fair Tax is NOT designed to produce a 23% increase in costs. I provided links to information that would help with that misconception, but then again, I "get it."
2. It is not necessary to fund government through a corrupt and convoluted taxation scheme which could not survive without appealing to envy, one of the basest human vices. The funds could be efficiently collected via the Fair Tax.
3. The misconception that prices would increase 23% is not compelling, and the funds to fund government are also available where people spend them.
4. I am NOT angry. Jeeze Louise, at this point I appear to be the only one having any fun.
But, I will withdraw at this point.
Merely bandying cliches like "You don't get it..." and "Yes I get it" like a discussion is some sort of rash is not productive.
Yes, it's fair that the top 5-10% pay the majority of taxes because they, the top earners, enjoy the political privileges afforded by legislation and their income is mostly derived from passive investments.
5-10% enjoy the "political privileges" is complete BS... income "mostly" derived from passive investments is also complete BS... apparently everyone who makes the top 5-10% don't work according to Blue Grass... extreme BS... Of course it isn't fair... if you pay more, you should get more... what do these people get? Are they enrolled in medicaid for paying more? Nope... do they get food stamps for free food? Nope... Do they get any social services for paying more? Nope... what they get is the BILL for all of that... fair? Only if you are receiving and not paying...i.e. socialism... is socialism fair? Some here think so... and that is sad...
Wow.. LOL.. well .. you have made it more complex. and went a little deeper than my intended post was meant to illustrate. AND I get what you're saying..
But here's the thing... those that have want to talk about "planning" .. which I'm assuming is learning to better budget money or take your money and grow it. But that is NOT as easy as you want it to be or make it sound to be and here's why.
Let's take a working poor person, for example. They work at a fixed rate. Their job is wht it is ... they do not really have the ability to make any more than they are making. Some even have 2 jobs to get what they are making..there is only so much time in the day. They have their bills to pay that have to be paid.. and they carry balances on bills because there is not enough money to cover them all monthly.. kind of just pay one when yuou can..let the other ring up.. etc. It's a pattern. It is very difficult to "plan" when there is nothing to plan with.
My post didn't mean to go so deep as to where you brought it.. it was more illustrating that it's not based on "envy" the progressive tax.. it's simply based on the fact that you get what you need from where you have it the most. The "need" being the government funding.
What the "fair tax" code says to me is that in the end, those with the least will be asked to pay more than they can bear. All the lessons in how to manage your money is great, but you need money to manage and there just isn't enough at the end of the day for people to grow etc.
I think you called it a "great analogy" of the progressive tax system. The progressive tax system and its justification IS complex and I tried to explain where I thought your analogy was a bit flawed and too simple. It's not as simple as "I need it and you can afford to give it to me." to justify taking from one person to give to another, IMO. The reasons you need it and the reasons I have it need to be considered. For example, if I drove to the store and bought 2 loaves of bread and found out when I returned that you needed one, would this be justification as to why I SHOULD give you one? Or, would it be more reasonable to expect you to drive to the store to get your own? I might indeed decide to give you one of the ones I bought out of the generosity of my heart, but why should it be expected? The point is, if I put the effort toward acquiring some item, how can one justify expecting and/or forcing me to give it to someone who hasn't put forth the same effort?
The Fair Tax, not a panacea, does provide a prebate to those below a certain income level to pay for the tax on necessities. Also, the elimination of the embedded taxes in the cost of producing products or services will reduce the initial cost of the product likely to the compensate for the 23% or 30% sales tax. So, the working poor won't pay anymore than they are now, and probably less considering the booming economy this will generate with companies moving back onshore and the inclusion of the underground economy.
I think you called it a "great analogy" of the progressive tax system. The progressive tax system and its justification IS complex and I tried to explain where I thought your analogy was a bit flawed and too simple. It's not as simple as "I need it and you can afford to give it to me." to justify taking from one person to give to another, IMO. The reasons you need it and the reasons I have it need to be considered. For example, if I drove to the store and bought 2 loaves of bread and found out when I returned that you needed one, would this be justification as to why I SHOULD give you one? Or, would it be more reasonable to expect you to drive to the store to get your own? I might indeed decide to give you one of the ones I bought out of the generosity of my heart, but why should it be expected? The point is, if I put the effort toward acquiring some item, how can one justify expecting and/or forcing me to give it to someone who hasn't put forth the same effort?
First.. the thing we all need to get past is that it's not individuals saying "I need give me". Beyond the SS programs (which technically a lto of those collecting on it paid into it) and welfare your money is NOT being taken from you and given to me for something I may need. This isn't about the other tax brackets knocking on the rich peoples doors saying I need this or I need that so give it to me. We need to get past that in order to really understand it. Those on your side of the argument seem to think that the middle income people are getting YOUR money.. we're not.. the government is. They are taking more money from you for the benefit of the nation as a whole.. and they are taking less from me and the reason is because I have less to take. I do not get any benefit any different than you are getting from the government.
If taxes were ONLY about social welfare programs then I'd see your point.. but it's not. Accept, it seems, that those in the higher brackets want to think that I am getting something from the money they are required to pay the government from their income.. and we're not..
I would never think to ask you to give me a loaf of bread because I need it. I 'll go out and get my loaf of bread myself...but the government may require you to donate a 1/2 of one loaf of bread from your 2 so now you have 1 1/2 loaves. They may require me to donate 1/4 of my loaf so I'm left with 3/4's. Could I have bought more bread? Not really I could only afford the 1 loaf...
My analogy was meant to be simple.
The Fair Tax, not a panacea, does provide a prebate to those below a certain income level to pay for the tax on necessities. Also, the elimination of the embedded taxes in the cost of producing products or services will reduce the initial cost of the product likely to the compensate for the 23% or 30% sales tax. So, the working poor won't pay anymore than they are now, and probably less considering the booming economy this will generate with companies moving back onshore and the inclusion of the underground economy.
What about the middle class? Again.. the middle falls just there.. in the middle.. we won't qualify for these "working poor" prebates. Basically the "fair tax" is asking the already squeezed middle income to pay more in taxes by adding 25% of the purchase price on top of the cost of the goods. Maybe we'll qualify for a prebate here ore there.. It's just another way for the middle class to be erradicated. As it is, the middle falls through so many cracks. WE make too much money to get enough financial aid to help with our children's college costs, yet we don't make enough to cover the cost of said education. The poor get it from the government, the rich already have it all on their own.
And not everyone can become "rich" simply because you need to have a middle ground.
I don't see the fair tax ever working for many of the reasons that saginista pointed out. It really just seems to me the way that the "rich upper middle and upper classes" way of seperating themsevles , elevating themselves while pushing others down.
What about the middle class? Again.. the middle falls just there.. in the middle.. we won't qualify for these "working poor" prebates. Basically the "fair tax" is asking the already squeezed middle income to pay more in taxes by adding 25% of the purchase price on top of the cost of the goods. Maybe we'll qualify for a prebate here ore there.. It's just another way for the middle class to be erradicated. As it is, the middle falls through so many cracks. WE make too much money to get enough financial aid to help with our children's college costs, yet we don't make enough to cover the cost of said education. The poor get it from the government, the rich already have it all on their own.
And not everyone can become "rich" simply because you need to have a middle ground.
I don't see the fair tax ever working for many of the reasons that saginista pointed out. It really just seems to me the way that the "rich upper middle and upper classes" way of seperating themsevles , elevating themselves while pushing others down.
Well, I dont' read Saganista's posts, so please describe what you see as not ever working.
Again, the 23% would NOT be in addition to the current cost of goods but would be added to the already reduced price of these same goods due to the elimination of the embedded taxes that make up the current price of goods. For example, a $1.00 widget at today's prices would cost approx. $.75 once the Fair Tax is implemented. Then, you would add on the 23% inclusive tax to bring the price back to nearly what it was. Nearly everyone would get a prebate to cover necessities. Go here to see an estimate of how much you would get. The Fairtax Calculator
The Fair Tax IS a progressive tax system, just fairer, more transparent, and more discretionary for ALL taxpayers. It seems that you have a misperception of the Fair Tax from reading too many opinions and not enough facts. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans for Fair Taxation
I am in the middle class, probably in the lower end of the middle class spectrum, so I understand your situation well. Whether you make only a little, an adequate amount, or much more, each person should be responsible for their own well-being.
[i]"Some 21 percent of those with salaries of $100,000 or more say they are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a recent survey conducted by CareerBuilder.com."
"While experts are quick to acknowledge that high gasoline prices, the slumping housing market and a generally weak economy are weighing on consumers' finances, they also agree that the general difficulty in making ends meet is also the result of persistently bad spending and saving habits that are now catching up with the spendthrift American."
Bottom 50% 2.99%
The same top 50% earns all together a little more than 7 times more than the bottom half. It's already very progressive. I think adding even more will bring more folks back into conservation mode.
Those that make 100,000 a year and still live paycheck to paycheck have nobody to blame but themselves. I have no sympathy for people like this. If I made this amount which equals 2,000 a week I do not know how I would spend it all in a week. $1600 of it would be in the bank. I doubt if I would even spend the whole remaining $400. Is'nt there anyone out there as frugal as me?. I have issues now but I somehow manage to stockpile money. My account has never been lower than $900 in 1 year.
Those that make 100,000 a year and still live paycheck to paycheck have nobody to blame but themselves. I have no sympathy for people like this. If I made this amount which equals 2,000 a week I do not know how I would spend it all in a week. $1600 of it would be in the bank. I doubt if I would even spend the whole remaining $400. Is'nt there anyone out there as frugal as me?. I have issues now but I somehow manage to stockpile money. My account has never been lower than $900 in 1 year.
Your assumptions though are the same false assumptions Obama makes. Living in NY city is different than living in the middle of Kansas as different as it would be living in California.....heck even little ole Charlotte.
Same scenario could be used with sizes of family. How far will $100k go with a single person as opposed to a person with 4 kids. Saving on dependents helps but you never get back unless your extremely crafty what you have to put out.
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.
)
Interesting point.
