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.
I did read the thread and I reject the notion that a person should be taxed higher simply because they make more. I do believe that every living person is where they are because of their own merits. Outside influences can effect us, but we are ultimately responsible for who we are and what we do. I believe every capable human being has the capacity to be a President Obama, a Bill Gates, or any other successful figure. I don't believe anyone should be punished for being successful.
Reality does not care about your beliefs. People may not be where they are because of something they did or did not do, or as a result of their own merits. This is foolish to think. Many, many factors well outside the control of people affect them every single day. We cannot hold people accountable for things themselves cannot control, this is absurd.
It is not a women's fault for being a woman, not a man's fault for being a man, yet a glass ceiling still very much exists. The white man is very much advantaged in society.
Bill Gates as a very lucky man. He became wildly successful because he bought some software and got into the industry at its very beginning. Rag-to-riches is an incredibly rare but often touted scenario. Social mobility is non-existent. As I said, reality cares not about what you believe.
And successful people are not being punished. Taxation is not punishment, it's a citizens responsibility to the country. If you are so wildly successful as to make that kind of money, you have little reason to reject the idea that you need it all. Many of the wealthy have little problem with increased taxes because they don't actually need all that money. The small-minded think its' a travesty for a number of reasons, one of which is that they think they will be taxes, despite making less than $250,000 a year. Second is that they falsely believe they themselves will one day make millions, and they don't want government having it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc
Yes they should if they want to benefit from government programs or other benefits of American society. No one should get a free ride.
Reality does not care about your beliefs. People may not be where they are because of something they did or did not do, or as a result of their own merits. This is foolish to think. Many, many factors well outside the control of people affect them every single day. We cannot hold people accountable for things themselves cannot control, this is absurd.
It is not a women's fault for being a woman, not a man's fault for being a man, yet a glass ceiling still very much exists. The white man is very much advantaged in society.
Bill Gates as a very lucky man. He became wildly successful because he bought some software and got into the industry at its very beginning. Rag-to-riches is an incredibly rare but often touted scenario. Social mobility is non-existent. As I said, reality cares not about what you believe.
Reality cares about your beliefs over mine? Laughable. I speak from my own experience, which is all any of us really have to go on. I speak from my heart.
I don't share your pessimistic view of humanity. I realize some things that happen to people are out of their control. I thought I mentioned that, but I tend to lose track of things sometimes. It's how we react and deal with those things out of our control that defines our lives.
I may be more positive in my view of humanity than you, I believe that people can do anything they set their minds to regardless of outside circumstances. I believe in the nobility of humanity. I don't make excuses for it's shortcomings.
I don't thing Bill Gates was "lucky" as you put it. He was a smart and shrewd business person. He saw something that would be useful to us and gave us a means to use it. Then he profited from it. Bill Gates is not the rich man he is today because he was male and white. To say so would be to diminish his accomplishments and his intellect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And successful people are not being punished. Taxation is not punishment, it's a citizens responsibility to the country. If you are so wildly successful as to make that kind of money, you have little reason to reject the idea that you need it all. Many of the wealthy have little problem with increased taxes because they don't actually need all that money. The small-minded think its' a travesty for a number of reasons, one of which is that they think they will be taxes, despite making less than $250,000 a year. Second is that they falsely believe they themselves will one day make millions, and they don't want government having it now.
You're right. Taxes are the cost of enjoying the benefits of American society. Not punishment, that was wrong of me to say. All people who enjoy those benefits should have to pay. Taxation is the payment. It's the rate of taxation that we don't seem to agree on.
If I earn the money I have who has the right to any dime of it? Who else earned that money for me? No one. I earn my living by legal means and pay proper taxes. Who has any kind of right to any of my profit?
Because I make more I should pay more? No. A flat tax is the only reasonable solution.
I was intrigued by your idea that people making under a certain yearly wage should be exempt from taxation. That is not a bad idea. If they earn less than a set amount, aren't on welfare, etc. Then lets not tax them. I'm going to think about this some more. Thanks.
I would estimate that 90% of the American population doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that some uneducated worker making 30k only pays 5k in taxes, whereas a freshout of college who makes a mere 40k has to pay 12k/year.
And someone who makes 2x what X-uneducated-loser makes 2x30=60k,
then that person pays 30% of 60k or around 18k/year.
So even WITH the flat tax, the educated hardworking graduate of an engineering program, for example, still pays 3x what some idiot liberal secretary or "artist" pays.
The rich already pay more.
51%+ only pay 6k or less. We've reached a tipping point. Hip Hip horay for losers! you won!
So, I worked my way through college. if I didn't, I could have gotten it for FREE is what you would like?
Here we go with the "So you're a socialist, then?" B/S as soon as someone wants a fair and balanced tax code.
People earning low income cannot afford to pay the same percentage tax as someone earning $250,000 or more. They simply cannot survive on a low income and pay the same or in many cases more of a percentage of their income than much higher earners wno get increadable tax breaks and have accountants who can "play" the system.
Doesn't make someone a Sociaist just because he/she wants a level playing field when it comes to pay scale and taxation. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy is no different to giving tax exemption to low earners but of course it is "Socialism" that is the motive for wanting a fair and balanced tax code.
Sick of hearing how "I worked my way through college" or ' I have never asked for a penny" or " If you can't afford to pay your bills, get three jobs" B/S. Many poorer workers in the USA do indeed have 2 or 3 or even more jobs just to "stand still" and not even be able to pay bills or get healthcare. To take even 10% from someone earning next to nothing leaves .... Nothing. To take 40 or 50% from someone earning mega money leaves.... mega money.
Let's get real here and stop this " I worked my butt off to get where i am" and the looking down on people who do hard work for very small pay and start making sure that everyone who works has the opportunity to benefit from their labour. I know people at Disney, for example, who work ten hour days in the b lazing heat, bringing in huge profits for Disney and Florida yet after Tax,Gas,food etc come home with not enough to pay their bills. these people probably work harder than most of the people on high wages yet get taxed to death and end up leaving or getting welfare just to survive. NO they can't just pick and choose their jobs and NO they do not have time to get extra employment. All they want is a fair days pay for a hard days work. They and millions like them are trapped in a bad system. Maybe we should start paying people for what they actually do for the Country and not how prestigous their job is or how they can scam the system by tax breaks etc.
Nurses would be earning fortunes while IT techs, Footballers etc would earn pennies.
Trying to get fairness does not mean it's Socialism but if you can ONLY get fairness by having Socialism then so be it.
Here we go with the "So you're a socialist, then?" B/S as soon as someone wants a fair and balanced tax code.
People earning low income cannot afford to pay the same percentage tax as someone earning $250,000 or more. They simply cannot survive on a low income and pay the same or in many cases more of a percentage of their income than much higher earners wno get increadable tax breaks and have accountants who can "play" the system.
Doesn't make someone a Sociaist just because he/she wants a level playing field when it comes to pay scale and taxation. Giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy is no different to giving tax exemption to low earners but of course it is "Socialism" that is the motive for wanting a fair and balanced tax code.
Sick of hearing how "I worked my way through college" or ' I have never asked for a penny" or " If you can't afford to pay your bills, get three jobs" B/S. Many poorer workers in the USA do indeed have 2 or 3 or even more jobs just to "stand still" and not even be able to pay bills or get healthcare. To take even 10% from someone earning next to nothing leaves .... Nothing. To take 40 or 50% from someone earning mega money leaves.... mega money.
Let's get real here and stop this " I worked my butt off to get where i am" and the looking down on people who do hard work for very small pay and start making sure that everyone who works has the opportunity to benefit from their labour. I know people at Disney, for example, who work ten hour days in the b lazing heat, bringing in huge profits for Disney and Florida yet after Tax,Gas,food etc come home with not enough to pay their bills. these people probably work harder than most of the people on high wages yet get taxed to death and end up leaving or getting welfare just to survive. NO they can't just pick and choose their jobs and NO they do not have time to get extra employment. All they want is a fair days pay for a hard days work. They and millions like them are trapped in a bad system. Maybe we should start paying people for what they actually do for the Country and not how prestigous their job is or how they can scam the system by tax breaks etc.
Nurses would be earning fortunes while IT techs, Footballers etc would earn pennies.
Trying to get fairness does not mean it's Socialism but if you can ONLY get fairness by having Socialism then so be it.
Let the central planners dictate wages and not actual demand for skill sets? Sounds like a good plan.
Just look at Cuba where you have doctors driving taxi cabs to make a buck
Just wanted to make sure progressives know I'm right there with them
While I would favor a return to 1950's income taxes - a much higher rate, but simpler deductions, and when a business re-invested in themselves (growing business, not just profits), rather then growing the bank accounts of CEO's and Wall Street, and just about everybody went home happy,
I would gladly trash the whole tax code for a one size fits all, no deductions, no breaks, for both people and corporations, but at 15%, with adjustments only to those who's local taxes took them past 25% (i.e. your total income tax liability could never be more then 25%) With pages upon pages written into the code for certain industries to get 'special' breaks, it would do more to set the course to balance the budget than anything else.
I have no problem with people being successful, but those rare few who achieve exceptional success must also bear the responsability of paying an exceptional share. If they want to donate their funds to legitimate charities, this is also acceptable, otherwise, taxation is a means of doing so. It's why I have no problem with billionaries like Warren Buffet or George Soros, but draw serious issues when it comes to billionaries like Rupert Murdoch who barely give at all, relatively.
Do not patronize me.
It will by very definition. That extra $1000 not only would help feed the person, but also provide additional income for rental or likewise.
You can't say the same of someone who loses $100,000 and still has $900,000 to spend. The reason flat-taxes don't work is because costs don't scale. Grocery bills for both parties are still $200 a month, but $200 to a guy making $10,000 is more significant than someone making 1,000,000. This is very simple to understand, and you have no legitimate argument against it because there isn't one.
You're paying for their house (or rent, or whatever) because they only make $10,000 a year, not the other way around.
A progressive tax essentially keeps low rates for people making money up to about 60,000 individually, where it begins to escalate. Again, costs don't scale to your income. The tax burden on the wealthy %10 is hardly a burden. For those on the low-end, it means buying a a trim level lower on your car. For those in the upper level, they won't even notice it, because they are already raking in billions.
As I've already demonstrated, it's because costs don't scale. To feed my family would be 9% of my total income. For someone making 250,000 a year, it's .19% of their income. Because costs don't scale, neither should taxes.
That isn't a specious argument. It's succinct.
I'm a realist.
So, I worked my way through college. if I didn't, I could have gotten it for FREE is what you would like?
Many people already get free-rides through colleges when they don't deserve them. You're also assuming that people who are poor or disadvantaged are there because they put themselves there, and nothing could be further from the truth.
We have millions of people out of work. We can put them to work by training them, and for those that are working two jobs at 60+ hours a week, it'd be difficult to attend and pay for them. Offering them a stipend for attending training courses, which benefits society in every way possible, is significantly better than enslaving them to minimum wages. We actually have a job shortages in many fields because there aren't enough trained workers to fill them. Funding education programs for the disadvantaged, the poor, the working class who otherwise wouldn't be able to do these jobs? That is a win-win situation. Fewer people on welfare in the long-term, lower unemployment, higher prosperity for the nation.
I don't think you understand how it works. It's a flat-rate consumption tax, (I think last I read was about 23%). The reason, once again, that it won't work is because costs don't scale. You're going to see a huge jump in the cost of everything, and as a result, a higher poverty rate as people aren't able to afford the things they would normally buy. The Fair-tax credits people to the point of poverty, but that's it--beyond that, you're on your own and paying heavily in taxes.
People like the idea because it taxes everyone equally, but flat-taxes, not matter their design, are destined to crush the lower and middle class. Look at that chart above. You can't run a country on the wealth of 80% of the people making just 20% of the cash. You simply can't. You must tax the wealthiest in order to generate the revenue without destroying the working public.
I read about it months ago when it was brought up, and I immediately began to find problems with it. Like any flat-tax, it's absolutely brutal to the lower classes.[/quote]
I'm a realist.
So, I worked my way through college. if I didn't, I could have gotten it for FREE is what you would like?[/quote]
Many people already get free-rides through colleges when they don't deserve them. You're also assuming that people who are poor or disadvantaged are there because they put themselves there, and nothing could be further from the truth.
We have millions of people out of work. We can put them to work by training them, and for those that are working two jobs at 60+ hours a week, it'd be difficult to attend and pay for them. Offering them a stipend for attending training courses, which benefits society in every way possible, is significantly better than enslaving them to minimum wages. We actually have a job shortages in many fields because there aren't enough trained workers to fill them. Funding education programs for the disadvantaged, the poor, the working class who otherwise wouldn't be able to do these jobs? That is a win-win situation. Fewer people on welfare in the long-term, lower unemployment, higher prosperity for the nation.
Whoa, nelly! All I did was comment on me paying for college when others don't. I never made a broad sweeping comment on our education system, funding retraining, etc. I actually agree with much of that. You assumed my position. We definitely need to revamp our secondary education system. We do have to make sure the system is fair though. That's all I was getting out. I will not allow you to project on to me an argument I didn't make.
You have a way of ignoring fact in your post that is quite stunning. It is because of tax credits, not low income. Some earn nearly $50,000 a year. If they can't afford taxes, stop smoking, drinking and all the other wastes of money so commonly found in such proliferation among the lower classes.
Your poverty is not, and will not be allowed to become, a monkey on my back. Pay your own way or get the hell out of the US and into some craphole of a backwater that more-suites you.
True, most of those are government mandated credits like the child tax credit & the mortgage interest credit. There has been talk of eliminating them, but doing so could be detrimental to the economy. Poor(er) people spend pretty much every dollar they take in which helps to keep consumer spending going. I'm not sure where you live, but $50K/yr. here in South Florida is decent. However, where I used to live, it's literally poverty.
Anyway, all I know is that people making $9 an hour certainly don't contribute to the tax burden. If we create more jobs in the $15-$20/hr. ranger they can move up to then they'll start to pull their own weight.
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.
