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)
 
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,315,194 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
"We already have a flat tax -- flat within each bracket."

Which is another way of saying that we don't have a flat tax!
I don't see why you think that rich people shouldn't pay a higher percentage of their income? If the top rate is 35% and we 'flatten' it. That means that lower income people have to pay more.

The rich are far better able to handle paying taxes than the lower incomes. Why does the right-wing insist on playing the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham instead of Robin Hood?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:22 PM
 
82,310 posts, read 39,578,109 times
Reputation: 12088
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Conservative mindset getting in the way. The reality is a lot more than what you can see, or perceive. Tell me, how is it fair for someone barely getting by on necessities to pay 10% on income tax compared to a person making 1000 times more?
Do they not receive government benefits and services? Why shouldn't they pay? The person making 1,000 times more would also be PAYING a 1,000 times higher tax bill.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:23 PM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
16,493 posts, read 11,512,754 times
Reputation: 8527
>The American People should never, ever let the Government decide what is the "correct" wage for any person.<

So people who have rigged the game should control it. Again Eddie Lampert 1.1 billion for an epic fail. Wall Streeters have rigged it so far it may well be an unstoppable feedback loop. paulson 5 billion in 1 year for moving money around for other hyper rich. 100+ years ago Jay Gould was a scum bag.. at least there was a railroad left behind when he took a dirt nap. Todays robber barons mostly create nothing of actual worth.

One of the reasons the WS banks were so anxious to pay back the loans was not because it was a bad idea. It was because they didnt like only being able to pay people 500K. Imagine an place so skewed that "You can not get good talent for ONLY 500K"
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,315,194 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Notice how the tax brackets were not adequately adjusted for inflation, either. Had they been so, the top tax bracket would start at an income of about $3.5 million, NOT the $250,000 Obama likes to demonize now.
Actually, $250,000 adjusted for inflation (1986) is $490,416 and 384,000 from Clinton's Pres.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:25 PM
 
82,310 posts, read 39,578,109 times
Reputation: 12088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
From Robert Reich:
Quote:
The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich.
So... Robert Reich is admitting that the rich already pay WAY more than their fair share. Good to know.

MTAtech, do you want to be fair, or not?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:27 PM
 
82,310 posts, read 39,578,109 times
Reputation: 12088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Actually, $250,000 adjusted for inflation (1986) is $490,416 and 384,000 from Clinton's Pres.
Your quote reaches back to the 1860s.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 27,748,344 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Do they not receive government benefits and services? Why shouldn't they pay? The person making 1,000 times more would also be PAYING a 1,000 times higher tax bill.
Be specific. IMO, a person making less has less to lose than a person making a lot more. Then look at this analysis of Herman Cain's "9-9-9" idea by non-partisan Tax Policy Center and, given the numbers, show me how it is fair to everybody.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:33 PM
 
82,310 posts, read 39,578,109 times
Reputation: 12088
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Be specific. IMO, a person making less has less to lose than a person making a lot more.
Less to lose? Interesting word choice. Taxes pay for the government. The government from which one receives benefits and services. If one benefits, they should pay. Why should any income earner get a free ride while others pay more to make up for them? Doesn't the Constitution provide equal protections for all?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,092 posts, read 12,865,646 times
Reputation: 14261
This debate would be a lot more productive if more people had the intelligence to recognize that the acceptability of income inequality is an issue of relative degree, not absolute black-and-white value.

Some income inequality is perfectly healthy, but too much may cause other problems. If you have your society structurally set up so that the top few percent get everything and everyone else hardly gets by...well that's not going to work - and the solution is not just to redistribute with taxes. Something is fundamentally wrong in this case that has to be addressed. There needs to be some sort of balance between what people across the socioeconomic spectrum produce and input into society and what they get back.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:45 PM
 
82,310 posts, read 39,578,109 times
Reputation: 12088
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Some income inequality is perfectly healthy, but too much may cause other problems. If you have your society structurally set up so that the top few percent get everything and everyone else hardly gets by...
Is that 'hardly getting by' with or without their designer purses and shoes, iPhones, Starbucks, big screen TVs, exotic vacations, expensive jewelry and watches, luxury homes and cars they really can't afford, etc., etc.?
Rate this post positively 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.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top