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.
Give ME a break. I didn't say that they were dying on the street -- I asked if that is something that people would like to see happen to the poor if given a choice between that or continuing to subsidize them with one's own money in the form of taxes. In short, if you are given a choice between forking over, say, an extra thousand a year in taxes vs. having someone go without food and starving to death (which, granted, is not very likely but it could happen, which is why I brought up the Irish Potato Famine), which would you choose?
The "literally die in the street" was your words
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
what if people cannot afford to buy the things that they need and are now provided by taxes, and they are without relatives who are able to help them? Are you willing to have them literally die in the street, starving and homeless?
You did not specify what you meant by "now is provided by taxes" but currently many things that are not basic needs are already provided or subsidized by taxes; Obama phones are provided and College debt is subsidized by taxes and proposed to be forgiven - taxes already cover basic needs for the indigent (if they will take it).
No one is seriously trying to cut providing basic needs for those US citizens that can not work. But do not propose more taxes for stuff that is not basic needs, US welfare already provides several times more support than the worlds average income. What needs to happen is to fix issues with providing subsidies for those that can work but don't, permanent welfare should not be a career option.
Most of the democratic proposed items are NOT basic needs but are money transfers. Giving basic services for illegal aliens is idiotic and not compassionate, they have no right to be here and it will just continue to attract the wrong ones to make the journey - we should NOT put up with being the worlds social welfare system.
[quote=Motion;55807319]When politicians say that the rich should pay more in taxes I ask pay more for what reason[quote]
I don't get progressive taxation. Just pick a flat tax rate, and everyone pays the same from the first to last dollar. Penalizing success is anti-american
Yes, but the relevant part were the words immediately preceding that. Go back and read my post #275. But here is the copy and paste from it (although I have now italicized it for clarity, and I bolded and underlined the relevant part):
"But, to ask my question again (albeit in a different way) -- what if people cannot afford to buy the things that they need and are now provided by taxes, and they are without relatives who are able to help them? Are you willing to have them literally die in the street, starving and homeless? To just name one example, have you heard of the Irish potato famine? There was almost no government or private aid, and approximately one million people died."
Anyway, I am through with debating with you since you obviously have no compunction about taking words out of context just to try to make your point. Consider yourself "ignored" from me from now on!
Last edited by katharsis; 08-22-2019 at 01:03 PM..
If I get a raise that ours me into a higher income bracket I have to pay more taxes. So why shouldn’t the rich have too? What makes them special?
They actually do feel "special," like they did something so extraordinarily right to have such a special fate. Truth is they probably did some stuff right and some stuff wrong and had lots of help along the way to get where they are. Humility is one of the best traits to have when you're on top.
You do realize that makes absolutely no sense, right? If taxes were fair, everyone would pay an equal share of what it costs to run the government. Progressive taxes are inherently unfair. Why should any one pay more than any one else? You've not only swallowed the Kool-aid, you're bathing in it.
I suppose you believe the price of consumer products should vary based on the purchaser's income?
They make more thus they should pay more. Simple. Make it fair.
Neither fair nor simple. Answer the question: Why should a high earner pay more for the exact same government services as a low earner? Try not to use circular logic.
Yes. Adam Smith is a proponent of a flat tax rate. As seen in my prior example, the higher income earner would pay more in proportion to their respective income.
From The Wealth of Nations
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Income is not the same thing as abilities.
Also, 'mucho trabajo poquito dinero' universal translation.
Congress could have replaced the progressive tax with a flat tax in 2017.
Congress could have eliminated intentional loopholes in 2017.
Congress could have cut costs to offset cuts in 2017.
Congress could deny appropriations.
Makes no diff which party sits the oval or holds the majority.
Despite this, incumbents have an advantage when it comes to elections.
Ockham's razor: Congress simply does not believe the rich should pay more.
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.
