Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2008, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,134,044 times
Reputation: 6549

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1 View Post
What a grossly simplistic post.
The reason people are averse to taxes is because whenever you place an excessive burden on achievement to subsidize failure, it stifles the achievement to begin with. It's also a matter of fairness.

What moral obligation do higher achieving people bear to lower achieving people, given that most of their achievement comes from personal sacrifice? Yes, there will always be the idiot-sons inheriting the old widows cash, but most people who succeed financially do so through their own hard work and brainpower.
Contrary to the leftist myth that achievement can only be had if you're some sort of an "insider" or that it's impossible to achieve to a high degree without hurting (baby seals, blacks, Tibet, the whales- whatever), the people who do well do so because of the good decisions they make.

Why should the fruits of their good decision-making be taxed to subsidize things that are often times the direct result of poor decision-making? And just because people who are very successful are taxed in a higher bracket, that doesn't mean that they should simply accept that. Sometimes, the consequence isn't a fair result of the action in question, so you cannot simply dismiss it since the people who took that action had foreknowledge of it.

No, I believe that everyone should pay the same. Set the benchmark and whatever you make, you pay a percentage of that. Whether you make $1,000,000,000 a year or $100,000 a year, we all contribute alike. That way, there is nothing in place that punishes success, like higher tax brackets.
I wouldn't have any problem with eliminating ALL taxes for people in the lowest income brackets- say, under $30,000 a year.
Yes indeed. Great post

 
Old 01-15-2008, 06:55 PM
 
9,867 posts, read 10,767,328 times
Reputation: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Briolat21 View Post
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..

So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?

If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?

discuss and enlighten.

I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
Correction! The government would not be "making" more money it would be "taking" more money!
 
Old 01-15-2008, 07:03 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,706,092 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
I don't think I would spend all of it. There is also the difference that at the lower end you'll be spending for necessities while at the higher level it's much more of a choice and wants.

I think a progressive tax schedule as long as it's not too steep is good.
Yeah, rich people probably just hide it under the mattresses. Or put it all in a big silo and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

Or, maybe...just maybe...even if they are not spending it on new cars, they are investing it, which still benefits the economy. Maybe? Is that possible?
 
Old 01-15-2008, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Roanoke VA
2,032 posts, read 6,863,898 times
Reputation: 927
Default Greedy

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Haha, best answer yet.
Someone has to be rich and someone has to be poor. Its the American way.
The rich must protect their wealth at all times by always looking over their shoulder at those less fortunate to make sure they aren't getting like the poor folks. I have noticed the rich as being greedy, it comes with the definition of rich. The poor aren't dumb and most know what is going on but they are just too darn nice to complain. The trouble with the poor is that they trust the rich too much to provide for them. There are many rich people who do care about the poor by donating $$ to social service organizations. On the other hand, the poor also donate their time and $$ to helping the poor as well. I think the way to look at it is we are all different and remember in life that everyone(rich or poor) will always find someone who is richer or poorer than they are.
 
Old 01-15-2008, 07:25 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,737,926 times
Reputation: 9283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Briolat21 View Post
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..

So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?

If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?

discuss and enlighten.

I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
Exactly who is greedy? The person wanting to keep HIS income from the government or the government wanting MORE of his income. It belongs to him, not the government... so who is greedy? As for the 40% tax rate or 50% tax rate... is it fair that others pay LESS than you percentage-wise? Would it be fair that if you see a fat person, you say give me half of your meal because you eat too much already so I should get a portion. Maybe at restaurants all fat people get less food at the same cost because its obvious they eat a lot already. I guess it would be greedy for them to want the SAME food as anyone else as he paid the same as everyone else. If you want to tax then, like lady justice you should be blind to race, gender, and income class. You don't pick one group out and say you pay more because you make more. Besides that.. celebrities make MUCH MUCH more than CEOs and you don't see everyone coming up in arms about celebrities not paying their fair share... I wonder why that is...
 
Old 01-15-2008, 07:28 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,706,092 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by roanoker 4 View Post
Someone has to be rich and someone has to be poor. Its the American way.
It's not the American way...it's the way of the world. It's always been that way. You have to have some rich people and some poor. It can't be any other way, for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the differences in abilities among human beings...simply put, some people are just better equipped to become or to stay rich than others.

Also, if everyone was rich, who would flip burgers? Pump gas? Ring up sales at Wal-Mart?

The rest of your post was not worth responding to, but I needed to say something about this part, at least.
 
Old 01-15-2008, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,134,044 times
Reputation: 6549
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
It's not the American way...it's the way of the world. It's always been that way. You have to have some rich people and some poor. It can't be any other way, for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the differences in abilities among human beings...simply put, some people are just better equipped to become or to stay rich than others.

Also, if everyone was rich, who would flip burgers? Pump gas? Ring up sales at Wal-Mart?

The rest of your post was not worth responding to, but I needed to say something about this part, at least.
Dunkel at last we agree on something. Rich is a relative term. Communist Russia or China or N.Korea. Everyone was a commrad. Everyone was equal who was in the party. And yet why were ranking party members allowed greater benifits? Nice houses, cars, whoa even servants. Because its the way of nature. There will always be those who are not as successful as others. Some due to bad decision making, some due to outside influences and some who just are not motivated to even try. Then you have those who eat breath and devoure challenge. They push themselves like machines towards their goals and they achieve them. Some are born into it but somewhere along that line someone pushed and struggled until they made it happen and now their offspring enjoy the benifits of that effort.
 
Old 01-15-2008, 09:51 PM
 
646 posts, read 1,783,719 times
Reputation: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Yeah, rich people probably just hide it under the mattresses. Or put it all in a big silo and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

Or, maybe...just maybe...even if they are not spending it on new cars, they are investing it, which still benefits the economy. Maybe? Is that possible?
You missed my point completely, so sorry for not making it clear. As a person with more money, you have a choice what you can do with it, not just having to buy food. I doubt that people simply spend it, but like you said, invest it, which does help the economy of course.
 
Old 01-15-2008, 10:00 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,706,092 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
You missed my point completely, so sorry for not making it clear. As a person with more money, you have a choice what you can do with it, not just having to buy food. I doubt that people simply spend it, but like you said, invest it, which does help the economy of course.
You then touted the benefits of a progressive income tax...so my opposition to your position remains undeterred.
 
Old 01-16-2008, 06:59 AM
 
3,728 posts, read 4,850,713 times
Reputation: 2293
I think a better question to ask is "Why are politicians so greedy?"
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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