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, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,051,746 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Nothing wrong with that is there? Surgeons don't save everyone because it isn't possible.
You are quite correct. Same holds true for corporations (using the Fiorina example).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 27,759,371 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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?
I asked for two thing. One, to be specific. And two, to use Tax Policy Center's study of a flat tax proposal. You did neither. Retry.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:48 PM
 
82,338 posts, read 39,604,935 times
Reputation: 12104
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I asked for two thing. One, to be specific. And two, to use Tax Policy Center's study of a flat tax proposal. You did neither. Retry.
Why do you get to limit the topics under discussion? You don't.

Fair is fair. You clearly don't want fair. You want someone else to pay.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 27,759,371 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why do you get to limit the topics under discussion? You don't.

Fair is fair. You clearly don't want fair. You want someone else to pay.
I let you set the limit... flat taxes. I asked you to engage within your limits. The only reason you'd now complain is that you've chosen to begin the typical run around. Respond directly, or shut up. Or this will be my last post on the subject with you... until next time you bring it up again.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 02:05 PM
 
82,338 posts, read 39,604,935 times
Reputation: 12104
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I let you set the limit... flat taxes. I asked you to engage within your limits. The only reason you'd now complain is that you've chosen to begin the typical run around.
I'm not complaining about anything about the flat tax. Though, the only reason I believe the flat tax is possibly unfair is because some people would pay many, many times MORE than others for the same government benefits and services.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 02:50 PM
 
9,856 posts, read 14,683,891 times
Reputation: 5468
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?


We can agree on that. Where we might disagree is that hard work doesn't always translate to more income. In fact, it rarely does. There are a LOT of factors that determine income. Do you disagree?


No, I didn't see you post along the lines, until now. So, I chose not to put words in your mouth and instead have you say it.
There are absolutely a lot of factors that determine income, hard work being one of them. The other three major factors are the ability to distinguish between value added effort and non value added effort, a person's level of education as well as the ability and tolerance of risk. Someone who spends the time and effort to educate themselves, takes risks at value-adding ventures and works extremely hard in the process will more often than not do very well for themselves.

But I am not saying that (and never will say) that greater levels of income equality is a good thing....I am not sure what you mean by 'until now'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
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?
The fact that there has been an inequality of tax rates for decades does not justify it as the correct action.

The wealthy (as we have proven by the sheer number of wealthy individuals who are self made) work extremely hard for the money they received, and have earned the right to keep it. No one in this country deserves the fruits of another person's labor, which is what you believe. That is also the point at which we have fundamentally different base beliefs, and is a major reason why we will never agree. You believe citizens have a right to what is produced by the sweat of anther person's brow. I simply do not agree with that. A person is fully and completely responsible for themselves. They are not owed any help from another person in any legal sense.

Morally and socially we have an obligation to help those around us, which is why I participate in charity work, both in terms of volunteering as well as giving money. Legally or ethically, we have no such obligation.

You need to separate morals and ethics. You need to separate social responsibilities from legal obligations. I know you don't agree with me, but do you at least comprehend what I am saying?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 27,759,371 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
There are absolutely a lot of factors that determine income, hard work being one of them.
I would say, hard work is the least influential of them. Yet, somehow, it makes the top of the list (and usually, the only one mentioned).

Quote:
But I am not saying that (and never will say) that greater levels of income equality is a good thing....I am not sure what you mean by 'until now'.
And you'd be wrong. If it were my responsibility to work on improving the economy, my goal would be to greater levels of income equality than a reduced level of income inequality, and hope for the best given the realities.

Quote:
The fact that there has been an inequality of tax rates for decades does not justify it as the correct action.
Quote:
The wealthy (as we have proven by the sheer number of wealthy individuals who are self made) work extremely hard for the money they received, and have earned the right to keep it. No one in this country deserves the fruits of another person's labor, which is what you believe. That is also the point at which we have fundamentally different base beliefs, and is a major reason why we will never agree.
Correct.

“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
- Adam Smith

Now only if the rich could operate in a vacuum would your point make sense. Your idea of "hard work" being key is amusing, and right along the very first point in this post. Somehow, it is the only one that makes the list.

Quote:
You believe citizens have a right to what is produced by the sweat of anther person's brow.
How else does a person become rich? Or, a rich person richer? Trust me, there is NOTHING wrong with that, in looking for self-interest. What is wrong, however, is denial that people need a healthy society to see the possibility of getting rich.

Quote:
Morally and socially we have an obligation to help those around us, which is why I participate in charity work, both in terms of volunteering as well as giving money. Legally or ethically, we have no such obligation.
My moral obligations dictate that the less I speak of charity, the more it means to me. Hence, I won't engage in an argument on that.

Quote:
You need to separate morals and ethics. You need to separate social responsibilities from legal obligations. I know you don't agree with me, but do you at least comprehend what I am saying?
Again, I don't believe in a "vacuum" society.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 03:06 PM
 
82,338 posts, read 39,604,935 times
Reputation: 12104
Quote:
Again, I don't believe in a "vacuum" society.
Yet you want one group to continue to suck money from another?

There goes your supposed belief.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 03:07 PM
 
679 posts, read 635,426 times
Reputation: 492
The problem of income inequality isn't a simple matter of who works hard and who doesn't.

Many are advantaged from birth. Put in better schools, parents with more money, etc.

Its a matter of who you know and who you are born into. That is unfair.

Supplying more money to make schooling opportunity more equal would be better for the nation.

I am not supporting welfare though, if thats what everyone is gonna accuse me of. Just supply more money and effort to improve civil infrastructure such as education, medicare and public transportation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,072,937 times
Reputation: 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
My problen is with the guy that owns the factory and lives off the profit created by your brother and cousin without having to actually do anything.
Good thing you're not a public employee living off the taxpayers who fund all those positions.
Rate this post positively 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
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. The time now is 07:51 PM.

© 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