- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 15,910
- Reaction score
- 12,630
- Location
- Plano, Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Do those people really need to pay more? They pay less than I do and you don't see me whining. Frankly, instead of whining, we should seek better ways of moving more of them up, a helping hand that teaches them to fish if you will.
many on the left think that those who do well were GIVEN more by the government which is a lie
We spend a lot of money "moving them up" right now...and it isn't working. My point, however, was not addressed.
Can you find me saying that anywhere? I will say for myself that successfor me came with many people helping. Few people actually do everything all by themselves. But they seldom have success without their own effort either. It is foolish to paint things as all one or the other.
Hell, they benefit more than that. A good deal more. That's why they are running around bemoaning being rich. No one is saying they rather be poor.
But if you follow tax history in this country, you would know that increase would not be excessive or more than has been paid before.
Can you find me saying that anywhere? I will say for myself that successfor me came with many people helping. Few people actually do everything all by themselves. But they seldom have success without their own effort either. It is foolish to paint things as all one or the other.
This sure sounds like you are saying the rich get tons of benefits-more than 40% of the government spending that everyone else
BBL
I think the balance is the problem. We spend a LOT of money on programs designed to aid the poor in "rising up". And we're not seeing a lot of poor "rising up", even in good economic times. Why would we throw more money at the problem, lessen their responsibilities and the expectations we have for them, or encourage them to continue utilizing programs that aren't helping them advance beyond their current station? Why aren't we creating programs that will actually change the status quo, instead of just holding everything in place??? We have major, major spending problems in this country and nobody is touching them...but the quick fix and the first thing I see time after time is to just tax the "rich" more because they aren't paying their "fair share". How about before we ask ANYBODY to contribute more money to a broken system we actually fix it. It's like handing out more buckets on a leaky ship...sure, it'll give you more time..but ultimately the boat's still full of holes.
Perhaps rising up is harder than many think. Perhaps we have not created the proper program. But, we really don't invest that much, comparatively. If we gave less to corporations, and more at the bottom, we might do better. Maybe.
As for fixing the ship, while we can do both at the same time, we must first indentify exactly what is broken, the causes of the probelm and then suggest a fix. There is no reason we can't do that while increasing revenue.
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.
The thing is, they don't want to fix it. Fixing it means serious cuts for their voter base, which will cost them elections. They'd rather pretend to fix it, make imaginary cuts and get more money to keep funding the absurd mandates. You just will never see them making serious and immediate cuts to social programs. It's a pipe dream.
Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.
As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.
The problem for your argument is that these things exist for every American, not just the privileged few. Gates did what he did, using existing publically available resources that *ANYONE* can access. He made his money because of his own skills. The same for Buffet. They had no special access, thus they derived no special benefits. Anyone who had the same skills and the same drive and the same ideas that Gates did in the 70s and 80s could be where Gates is today. Cut Gates out of the equation and we probably wouldn't have a Microsoft analog today.
I have a huge problem with punishing those who work, succeed, and already pay taxes for the sake of funneling more money to those who don't....ESPECIALLY if we're still waiting on a "fix" for the programs that are causing these people to fail/stagnate, as well as every other program, department, and organization which receives money from the government. Fix first, charge after...if it's necessary.
No, I think it is fair. Those who get more, should pay more. This is fundamentally fair.
THEY DO PAY MORE???? Do you not understand simple math dealing with total percentages of income?!?!?!
What a load of BS. Bill Gates didn't invent computers or software. Gates and his partner, Paul Allen took an existing operating system CPM and converted it to run on IBM's new desktop computer and called it DOS. There were many people involved with creating the computers we know today, not just Gates and Jobs. Much of what Microsoft produces are knockoffs of what others have produced. The internet was once a system for use by the military -ARANET. It was Sen. Al Gore that had the vision to convert it to what was then known as the Information Super Highway.Really? Gates invented computers and software??? They wouldn't have been invented without him or Jobs??? Amazing. Did they invent the internet too? How about Snapple?
And here we all thought the Federal government paid for the research that led to all that, and the universities, and the employees training, protected the markets they're sold in, the shipping lanes, the interstate highways making the markets accessible, patent law protections, etc., etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum that made them possible, or conceivable in the first place.
But, no, it was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!!!
And Reagan! We wouldn't have a computer industry if the Grenadans hadn't been driven back in the very nick of time.
Thanks Ron, and Bill, and Steve!
Thinks that some people need to look up the definition of “fair” in the dictionary, by definition a progressive tax system is not fair. Being fair is not allowing 47% of the working population to pay no federal income tax, while 10% of the working population pays roughly 45% of all federal income tax … so I guess I need to ask some here what is their meaning … when they say they want someone to pay their “fair” share ??
Then it comes to getting from the government, while those 47 percent that pay nothing, apparently still uses everything the government supplies, and pay nothing …. are they paying their “fair” share?
10 percent of the working pay for 45% of the cost of building and maintaining those same things … now to many percentages don't mean much so lets put actual numbers to this … there are roughly 150 million people in our work force.
47% or 70,500,000 people pay nothing in federal income tax to pay for these things, using 2008 figures 10% of the population or 15 million people paid 45% of 2.5 trillion or or 922 billion dollars
So in all fairness … tell me who paid their fair share
15 million people that paid 922 billion dollars in federal income tax
or
70.5 million people that paid nothing in federal income tax ??
100% agree with the whole post, especially your comments on tax as "punishment".I never understood this mentality that taxes are a punishment. It's not like higher income ever reaches diminishing returns. Or that somehow strengthening the country as a whole by providing more resources for it to accomplish its goals is somehow a punishment. If we all pitch in, the nation becomes stronger, and we all benefit. Even using the term punishment is strange to me. It supposes that government is an authoritarian parent, rather than an organization that exists for no other purpose than to execute our will. It works for us, not the other way around. (Not getting into the issues of how vast corporate wealth makes the government only work for the highest bidder.)
Taxes are just paying the upkeep on the country. That's it. To say that taxes are a punishment would be to say that paying for something you buy is a punishment. No one takes that position, do they? We put money, the fruit of our collective labor, into the coffer, and the government then gives us things in return. It's a business transaction. And to reap the benefits of that government, and the fruits of everyone's collective labor (because absolutely no one only lives off of the fruits of their own labor), and then demand not to pay for them... that's like eating a feast at a restaurant and then skipping out on the bill.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?