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.
Won't go back and quote the exact people since some of the posts are incredibly long but suffice it to say that there are a portion that believe the flat or fair tax is not fair, the progressive system is the most fair but that the wealthy do not pay their fair share or enough. I think that sums it up.
Now, I ask this. For those of you in favor of having the rich pay even more, even though they carry the largest tax burden already, your argument is that taxes don't effect them as much and therefore they should pay more? Do you want them taxed until you have a flat distribution of income? How does that even remotely fall within the ideals of this country? That is entering dangerously into a Marxist style of income distribution properties. It shouldn't matter if the vast majority of Americans will not see their wealth in the millions, billions, etc. If the rich get to keep more of their income after paying taxes, I consider that fair. They pay their share, which by the way, is often much more than any other person can afford. Because "you" do not have that amount of money, that makes it somehow unfair? Hogwash.
Some people act as though opportunity is something only reserved for a subsect of the population when in fact, opportunity is something that anyone can take advantage of given good life choices, hard work, and application of that hard work. It was argued that hard work alone doesn't get you rich. No, it doesn't. Making intelligent decisions does as well. Again, none of that is restricted to a specific class or type of person. Will everyone be Bill Gates? No. Can you reasonably expect to better your life and life a comfortable life? Yes and no amount of increased taxes is going to give you that, only hard work and good decisions will do that for you.
Now, I ask this. For those of you in favor of having the rich pay even more, even though they carry the largest tax burden already,
But they don't. Their income tax is the largest burden (barely), but their overall taxes paid aren't. With 83% of the monetary wealth in the United States, they pay just 68% of all federal taxes.
Quote:
your argument is that taxes don't effect them as much and therefore they should pay more?
It isn't that it doesn't affect them, it's that the value of a dollar to someone making 20,000 and someone making 20,000,000 is greater to the person making less. As I've stated a few dozen times by this point, costs do not scale. Bread is 5% of my total income, where-as for the millionaire, it's .00005% of his\her income.
Quote:
Do you want them taxed until you have a flat distribution of income? How does that even remotely fall within the ideals of this country? That is entering dangerously into a Marxist style of income distribution properties. It shouldn't matter if the vast majority of Americans will not see their wealth in the millions, billions, etc. If the rich get to keep more of their income after paying taxes, I consider that fair.
They pay their share, which by the way, is often much more than any other person can afford. Because "you" do not have that amount of money, that makes it somehow unfair? Hogwash.
They don't pay their fair share, which I've outlined in one of the two long posts I've had up there.
Quote:
Some people act as though opportunity is something only reserved for a subsect of the population when in fact, opportunity is something that anyone can take advantage of given good life choices, hard work, and application of that hard work.
Speaking of hogwash, this is ignorant and naive. No-one expects cancer, but that will bankrupt a number of families. Suddenly, all your hard work and opportunity is replaced with vomiting in the middle of the night and a disability check, and no insurance company will touch you.
Quote:
It was argued that hard work alone doesn't get you rich. No, it doesn't. Making intelligent decisions does as well. Again, none of that is restricted to a specific class or type of person. Will everyone be Bill Gates? No. Can you reasonably expect to better your life and life a comfortable life? Yes and no amount of increased taxes is going to give you that, only hard work and good decisions will do that for you.
I'm starting to get blue. The amount of luck that Bill Gates had to make millions is extraordinary. The amount of luck George Soros had to break the bank of England was extraordinary. He predicted an outcome that had no guarantee of success. Realistically, few people make tons of money because they are fortuned by luck, circumstance, and a little bit of skill and knowledge. Very, very few people have rags-to-riches stories. We need to stop championing them.
But they don't. Their income tax is the largest burden (barely), but their overall taxes paid aren't. With 83% of the monetary wealth in the United States, they pay just 68% of all federal taxes.
It isn't that it doesn't affect them, it's that the value of a dollar to someone making 20,000 and someone making 20,000,000 is greater to the person making less. As I've stated a few dozen times by this point, costs do not scale. Bread is 5% of my total income, where-as for the millionaire, it's .00005% of his\her income.
They don't pay their fair share, which I've outlined in one of the two long posts I've had up there.
Speaking of hogwash, this is ignorant and naive. No-one expects cancer, but that will bankrupt a number of families. Suddenly, all your hard work and opportunity is replaced with vomiting in the middle of the night and a disability check, and no insurance company will touch you.
I'm starting to get blue. The amount of luck that Bill Gates had to make millions is extraordinary. The amount of luck George Soros had to break the bank of England was extraordinary. He predicted an outcome that had no guarantee of success. Realistically, few people make tons of money because they are fortuned by luck, circumstance, and a little bit of skill and knowledge. Very, very few people have rags-to-riches stories. We need to stop championing them.
You state these things as if they are fact, when in reality, they are your opinion. There's at least one thing I agree upon, the value of the dollar can and does have a significant effect upon your buying power. Mayhap our administration should stop flooding the market and restrict the dollar supply, which would make everyone's money go a lot further. But I digress.
Your argument that one cannot realize a comfortable life by hard work and intelligent decisions is both false and disingenious. I already said that not everyone can be Bill Gates and I believe most people know and understand that. However, can a person go from a poverty status to middle class, for example? Yes and there are a multitude of examples in everyday life, my own husband's even. Does that guarantee everyone can get there? Nope. Life is not set up to be fair, nor will it ever be so. Sometimes you have to start over - I believe there are many Americans facing just that now. Sometimes you have a medical illness that can set you back - why do you think bankruptcy actually exists? It's a tool, not a stigma, for people in that scenario. I would go so far as to argue that how you come back from a set back defines how ultimately successful you are in life. Again, something I've seen personally time and again but I'm sure that is incredibly rare and unusual too.
But, by and large, hard work and intelligent decisions makes a world of difference in the outcome of your life. When has increased government assistance ever made someone successful? Increased taxation only serves to have more and more reliance upon government assistance vice one's own choices and hard work. Why must the rich finance more government assistance for those at the bottom when the rich already pay enough as is? You may disagree that they do not pay enough but again, remember, that's your opinion and not fact. There are several who are not of your opinion.
By the way, don't think it was you talking about making a flatter income distribution, but it was indeed brought up and I felt it necessary to point out how that was both concerning and not in line with the ideals of this country.
Why ask anyone to pay more taxes unless the fed is willing to cut their waste out first?
Why ask anyone to pay more taxes while we are giving billions away to just about everyone with their hand out?
Heres an idea. Elected reps pay based on performance.
Run in the red 25% pay cut.
caught passing bills that include waste? 25% pay cut and pay for their own benefits.
If your argument is that we should tax people fairly, wealth is one of the best measurements. I'm not going to repeat myself for the seventh time as to why a flat tax does not work, and why taxing poor people isn't effective either.
Of course, it's unions. It's always unions. Or teachers. or public sector.
Show me these unfortold millions they have.
They tax consumption at a low flat rate that still disadvantages those without wealth because COST DOES NOT SCALE. And more so, like the federal government, states collect taxes from a variety of sources, not just sales tax.
Unless you have an argument as to how we tax people with a flat rate that somehow combats the undeniable and unanswered FACT that costs do not scale, I'll will call you a flabby-headed moron for every response you post after this.
Baby Momma Bennies? What the hell is that? What are you talking about illegals? Make some coherent statement, please.
You can still do so, no one is stopping you from investing your money.
Because they are already in debt, one of the reasons people are in such dire shape in the first place! Using debt to pay off debt doesn't make any sense.
New cars, while expensive up front, can be cheaper in the long run, which is a more fiscally responsible choice. One of the reasons people are in debt, they look to make cheap choices now which could cost more in the long run. Moving on.
Do you honestly believe that people want to be poor and on welfare? Or that they should expect a $200,000 medical bill for cancer? There is a very limited sector of people that are perpetually on welfare because employment opportunities don't exist for them. They work two jobs and still can't make payments. They can't afford post-secondary education to get a better job, so we condemn them to eternal poverty, and somehow blame them for a system that doesn't work to get them off in the first place. Making 22,000 a year, with 20% interest on your loans because you have bad credit (because you can't make payments), and offering to pay that off with more loans is fiscally irresponsible. You can't keep paying debt with debt.
This is the most ignorant thing I've seen you say. It hasn't kept up with inflation. It doesn't provide any kind of wage. 15,080 a year with zero vacation time is not in any way a means of supporting oneself.
This is counter-productive. You can't expect people to find better work, when they are only qualified for a select few positions, and those positions pay minimum wage. They can't afford to school themselves, or don't have the time because they are working 60 hours a week. So instead of doing something sensible, like raising the minimum wage to livable standards to bring people out of poverty (which is what the minimum wage laws are designed to do), we say "**** 'em, they don't apply themselves."
Many people are where they are not because of doing something or not doing something, but because this system is designed to keep them there. For the third time now, social mobility does not exist in any real sense.
There is a serious problem with the minimum wage if it doesn't keep up with inflation.
We receive financial aid in our times of need as well. Whenever a crisis strikes, nations provide millions in aid. We respond in kind, and like it is the duty of the wealthy in the United States to help the less fortunate (it's "fortunate" for a reason), it's the responsibility of wealth nations to help those in need as well.
The government is there to protect society at large. The government can't do its job as long as people are too stupid to see this.
You don't know what Baby Momma Bennies are...........wow, really must have your head in the sand. And yes, illegals do qualify to scoop them up due to the Anchor Baby being an alleged citizen of the United States Of Ameritard.
Making 50,000 a year. The ones who can't afford to pay taxes because they need to afford such extravagant luxuries such as food, shelter, and clothing.
I and all of my co workers are under 40,000$ a year pay scale. most of them that are on government aid have new trucks,cars I call that extravagant,. I DRIVE MY 3000$ car cause that is all I can really afford without making the tax payers pay for a better car. perhaps I AM! a little jealous. but I just cant bring myself to beg for somting I dont really need. now you are talking 50,000$ that to me is a luxurie. people making that kind of dough dont need any help what so ever!!
You state these things as if they are fact, when in reality, they are your opinion.
I frequently cite my sources. Have you done the same?
Quote:
There's at least one thing I agree upon, the value of the dollar can and does have a significant effect upon your buying power. Mayhap our administration should stop flooding the market and restrict the dollar supply, which would make everyone's money go a lot further. But I digress.
Deflating the dollar won't help, as prices will change to reflect the new buying power. Everything will get more expensive.
If you want greater buying power, you need to put more money in your pocket, and the only way to do is to raise taxes on the wealthy who are under-paying their share, and lower taxes on the poor and wealthy, who are over paying their share. Once the poor and middle-class, comprised of 90% of the population, have more money and less tax burden, the demand for goods rise, economy begins churning. The entire "trickle-down" failed supply-side economic policies of Reagan have failed for the past 40 years. Why we continue to stick with them is because rich people have the idiots fooled. The fallacy of supply-side economics, which has created volatile bubbles and divided the middle-class, while shifting the tax burden from those who hold the wealth to those who don't, has never worked.
You can produce all the goods you want, but without any demand (because the middle-class are over taxed), you will not have an economy.
Quote:
Your argument that one cannot realize a comfortable life by hard work and intelligent decisions is both false and disingenious.
I didn't say people can't realize a comfortable life as such, but the assumption that everyone one welfare is there because they are lazy--which is overwhelming what people believe--is false. We can't blame people who are where they are because of their own merits. Those who succeed with hard-work, great--they are few and far between. Those who continue to work hard and still get no-where? Those are the ones we are here to protect. You'd rather throw them into the gutter because of a disillusioned belief of "they aren't working hard enough."
Quote:
I already said that not everyone can be Bill Gates and I believe most people know and understand that. However, can a person go from a poverty status to middle class, for example? Yes and there are a multitude of examples in everyday life, my own husband's even. Does that guarantee everyone can get there? Nope. Life is not set up to be fair, nor will it ever be so. Sometimes you have to start over - I believe there are many Americans facing just that now. Sometimes you have a medical illness that can set you back - why do you think bankruptcy actually exists? It's a tool, not a stigma, for people in that scenario. I would go so far as to argue that how you come back from a set back defines how ultimately successful you are in life. Again, something I've seen personally time and again but I'm sure that is incredibly rare and unusual too.
Anecdotal.
Quote:
But, by and large, hard work and intelligent decisions makes a world of difference in the outcome of your life.
Sure, but again, the fallacy that people are where they are because of laziness needs to be disposed, and it is always the fallback of anyone who wants to abolish social programs that help those in need. "They're just a bunch of lazy bums."
No, they've fallen in hard times because of no fault of their own.
Quote:
When has increased government assistance ever made someone successful?
Nobody is claiming someone on welfare will be the next Bill Gates either, but the vast majority of people who ever use welfare are on it for a short period of time.
However, for those on it for long periods of time, one of the reasons is the inability to find paying work that will support the families they have. Minimum wage wont' cut it, and since many of these long-term recipients are uneducated or unskilled, they will require more assistant to leave welfare.
Instead of throwing them to the wayside ("they aren't working hard enough!"), the actualization of these peoples' struggles, that they can't for one reason or another, find better work, means we should be helping them, not demonizing them. It's best for society to get them working, and it's the most humane thing to do.
Quote:
Increased taxation only serves to have more and more reliance upon government assistance vice one's own choices and hard work.
Taxation isn't correlated with reliance upon government.
Quote:
Why must the rich finance more government assistance for those at the bottom when the rich already pay enough as is?
Perhaps it's because they aren't paying their share of federal taxes. Perhaps its because the value of their dollar is less than the value of a working-poors' dollar. Perhaps the federal programs we enact benefit society greatly.
Quote:
You may disagree that they do not pay enough but again, remember, that's your opinion and not fact. There are several who are not of your opinion.
Not opinion. Fact. 1% have 38% of the wealth and pay just 28% of the total taxes. 10% have 83% of the wealth and pay just 68% of all federal taxes.
You see, unlike the few conservatives I've had to argue against on this thread, I've looked at the numbers, I know what everyone is paying. The Talking Heads love to parrot the fact that the wealthy pay slightly higher income taxes than they proportionally make, but income taxes are not the only taxes levied against citizens. When all taxes are taken into account, they pay less than they bring in, proportionally. So, FACT they do not pay their share. The middle-class is overpaying their share to compensate for Reagan's failed economic policies.
Quote:
By the way, don't think it was you talking about making a flatter income distribution, but it was indeed brought up and I felt it necessary to point out how that was both concerning and not in line with the ideals of this country.
Flat-taxes do not work. I've covered that earlier in the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No, it isn't, because the net effect would be everyone would be taxed repeatedly on the same money. No one will stand for that.
No, doofos, I'm not talking about taxing everyone each year on everything they own, that'd be ridiculous. Federal taxes are levied against a number of wealth generating methods, one of which is the income tax.You forget about other taxes the wealth avoid, or pay less than, like the payroll tax. The entire breakdown was in the CBO pub (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf - broken link)I linked earlier.
First of all, Champion News is a blog. It's a right-wing anti-unionist blog. If you're going to post evidence, do better than sweeping generalizations. The purpose of a union is to get better compensation for its members for the labor it provides. There is no shock when unions provide better benefits than non-union pensions and benefits. However, to claim that unions (especially teacher's unions!) are bankrupting the country is a farce.
Research shows that even Union plans don't always work as they should. So your argument is kind of flying away at this point.
Quote:
Via the DoD, yes. Via social welfare programs? No, there is no Constitutional mandate for social welfare programs.
Article 8, S1 has been used more than once in defending social programs, which provide for the benefit of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul
You don't know what Baby Momma Bennies are...........wow,
Perhaps because you've never defined it.
Quote:
really must have your head in the sand. And yes, illegals do qualify to scoop them
What is "them."
Quote:
up due to the Anchor Baby being an alleged citizen of the United States Of Ameritard.
They are an alleged citizen of the United States. If these "anchor babies" you claim are not American Citizens, well--none of us are, as unless you're pureblood native American, or pureblood American Colonialist--you're an illegal immigrant treading on this soil.
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.