Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:963:1176:1448]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

TurtleDude said:

those who justify theft never want the targets of thievery armed

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving everything I said about right libertarian extremism and bloodlust is true.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

haymarket said:

Thank you for proving everything I said about right libertarian extremism and bloodlust is true.

Click to expand...

its actually the gun banning left that wants innocent people hurt. Its only the criminals they worry about. anyone who supports arming victims is seen as right libertarian extremism by the criminal empowerment sector

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

haymarket said:

Trying to cover your tracks at this late date is pretty useless. The truth has been out for a very long time now.

Click to expand...

Yeah, about what?

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Gimmesometruth said:

Boing boing boing...


You just brought up an argument that "DEMS DID NOT STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!"

I smacked your argument with the facts on the ground, and now it is reeling with:

"TOTALITARIANS WANT EQUAL PAY!!!!!!!"

Nice comeback, I just wonder what the hell your argument will be next.

Can't wait.

Click to expand...

No you didn't "smack" my comments on Democrats out of control spending. You have your "sanitized" "revisionist" idea of what happened but the numbers don't lie. And the result of such incompetence has played a huge role along with your spread the wealth/social justice policies promoted are directly linked to our slow recovery on life support.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

vesper said:

No you didn't "smack" my comments on Democrats out of control spending. You have your "sanitized" "revisionist" idea of what happened but the numbers don't lie. And the result of such incompetence has played a huge role along with your spread the wealth/social justice policies promoted are directly linked to our slow recovery on life support.

Click to expand...

You totally avoided countering the fact of state/local layoffs or the huge cuts by Congress.....instead you jumped back to "social justice is slowing the economy!!!!"

News Flash!

Economic inequality ROSE in 2013.

I guess those "social justice" efforts on the part of those TOTALITARIAN Dems.....did not have much effect.....The wealthy got much more wealthy.


Let me know when the trickle comes down.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Henrin said:

I would say high taxation is necessary in such a system.

Click to expand...

Shows what you know. Communism dictates that the State owns the means of production. There is no need for income tax in a Communist state, the people only receive what they need. Why this obsession with such a foreign system? America is and always will be capitalist based. The only way that would change is if your side got your way and brought it all down. There is always that danger with a system so dependent on Govt. regulation to curb capitalisms destructive tendencies.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

iguanaman said:

Shows what you know. Communism dictates that the State owns the means of production. There is no need income tax in a Communist state, people only receive what they need. Why this obsession with such a foreign system? America is and always will be capitalist based. The only way that would change is if your side got your way and brought it all down. There is always that danger with a system so dependent on Govt. regulation to curb capitalisms destructive tendencies.

Click to expand...

That is why I said it wouldn't matter when the system was fully in place. No one would own anything except the government, so taxes has no reason to exist. Of course, up to that point is another matter.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

haymarket said:

Trying to cover your tracks at this late date is pretty useless. The truth has been out for a very long time now.

Click to expand...

Really, what truth has been out about me for very long time now? You were talking about bloodlust, but I have never shown any such desire. You were being absurd and so I decided to play with you a bit. Stop being so gullible.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Henrin said:

I'm guessing you have some other way people will feed, cloth, house, and otherwise provide for themselves so they could save every cent they earned.

Click to expand...

It was an exaggeration but the point still stands. Money not spent does not employee people or make profits for corporations. Spending does.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

haymarket said:

Thank you for proving everything I said about right libertarian extremism and bloodlust is true.

Click to expand...

Baloney. But your thinking some could say is extreme. You focus on those who have more as being unfair. It is envy not compassion. You begin with the rich and when the wealth of the 1 percent no longer is sufficient for what you want you will then hone in on ever smaller subsets of the rich. Well not everyone seeks to be wealthy. A minister or a farmer certainly doesn't chose their professions because it is going to make them wealthy. A 25 year old isn't going to know the wealth of a 65 year old who has spent a lifetime earning it. And there seems to be a growing number in our society willing to destroy their lives through drug addictions/crime/failure to seek all the advantages of an education/reproducing children before they can even provide for themselves. Yet you throw all classes into one pile and then claim income inequality instead of focusing on the rights afforded to all to pursue wealth in a free market society if they so choose.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

vesper said:

Baloney. But your thinking some could say is extreme. You focus on those who have more as being unfair. It is envy not compassion. You begin with the rich and when the wealth of the 1 percent no longer is sufficient for what you want you will then hone in on ever smaller subsets of the rich. Well not everyone seeks to be wealthy. A minister or a farmer certainly doesn't chose their professions because it is going to make them wealthy. A 25 year old isn't going to know the wealth of a 65 year old who has spent a lifetime earning it. And there seems to be a growing number in our society willing to destroy their lives through drug addictions/crime/failure to seek all the advantages of an education/reproducing children before they can even provide for themselves. Yet you throw all classes into one pile and then claim income inequality instead of focusing on the rights afforded to all to pursue wealth in a free market society if they so choose.

Click to expand...

Every economist knows there is no such thing as a real free market. You need to start over from there.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Federalist said:

My definition? What definition? I said that I consider it unethical for the government to tax A in order to hand out the money to B. My comment is specific to that scenario, not all taxation.

Click to expand...

But you're not understanding that that's all taxation is: taking money from person A to hand to person B. The only differences lay in why the government gives that money to person B. Usually, that money is given to person B for a service, say, that of a teacher or a soldier or an IRS agent or an OSHA inspector. Other times, that money is given to non-governmental agencies, like companies or corporations for services (road maintenance or facility cleaning) or goods (office supplies, toilet paper, food for the vending machines) or even research and development (Lockheed Skunk Works, etc.). Sometimes that money is given to foreign individuals, agencies, or nations...these can be for any of thousands of reasons, from wildlife preservation to counterinsurgency support to protection of intelligence assets to outright bribes.

Not all of these uses are good or right...but most of the time, most of them are, just as most of the time, most of the people really, truly want to do the right thing.

Now one of the uses I didn't mention is the one that you seem to have a problem with - giving the money to person B when that person B is not providing a good or a service in return...and I'll continue on that assumption. Why would a government give a person money month after month, sometimes for well over a year, if that person is not providing a good or service in return?

The answer's quite easy: in the long run, it saves the government - and the taxpayers - a lot of money. Let's first address unemployment benefits. First, one must understand that while yes, there are some who abuse the system, MOST people on unemployment honestly want a job - trying to keep a family fed, clothed, and sheltered on unemployment benefits is really difficult...but not impossible.

So let's get down to brass tacks - is it easier to get a job if one has no criminal record, or if one is an ex-con? The former, obviously. Is it easier to get a job if one has a home with electricity and running water, or if one is homeless? Again, the answer is obviously the former. Those who are homeless are much less able to get a job, and much more likely to engage in crime...and so are their children. The more people who are evicted and tossed out on the street, the higher the crime rate will be...and this has a direct deleterious effect on the community. And the greater the crime level, the worse the effect on local businesses...and the more likely they will lay off people...and the more people will be jobless...and if they are evicted...

...it becomes a vicious circle, one that is very difficult for a community to recover from...and even a successful recovery can take many years. And all that time, with all the loss of business revenue and losses of jobs comes community-wide loss of tax revenue.

So which costs more - to continue paying unemployment benefits (which are spent in the community supporting the local businesses anyway) or to suffer the loss of tax revenue from the higher rate of homelessness and the higher rate of crime that always, always follows? If you'll think about it, the same logic applies to welfare and food stamps...and again, while some do abuse the system, most hate being on welfare and food stamps. My family was on them too when I was a teenager...but now I'm a small business owner providing jobs for other people.

So it goes with that bane of all modern-day Conservatives, that Conservative invention called "Obamacare". It's certainly not a perfect system, but it's a heck of a lot better than what we had (my oldest son now has health insurance despite his preexisting condition of a serious bout of rheumatic fever). How does Obamacare save the taxpayer money, especially given that so many people are given taxpayer-funded subsidies? Well, Obamacare's not perfect - it's not a truly socialized health care system like that found all the other first-world democracies...and in our armed forces (it's called 'TRICARE'). But what one finds with such systems is that one is MUCH more likely to go to the doctor to get problems taken care of when they're first noticed...and one is much less likely to wait until one is very sick (or deathly ill), when one's care would be much more expensive.

Speaking of expensive, would it be a benefit to America's economy if the single biggest cause of all our nation's bankruptcies (and the foreclosures that follow all too often) was removed? About half of all our bankruptcies have health expenses as the cause or a major contributing factor...whereas in Canada, it's closer to 10%.

IN OTHER WORDS, just because the government's giving money to someone without receiving an obvious service or good in return does NOT mean that the government's simply 'throwing money away' or 'redistributing wealth for ****s and giggles'. That 'wealth redistribution' is perhaps our most effective tool in keeping the homeless population - and the crime that always follows - down to a minimum. Got to Canada sometime, walk down the streets of Vancouver - a city of 2M - and try to count how many homeless you see. I have, over a New Year's weekend about five years back. I counted two.

Your assumption that I want to live in a nation that has a weak government is entirely unfounded, and is wrong.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll take that hit.

The only comment I have made is that I consider it unethical for a government to tax A in order to hand the money over to B.

Click to expand...

And I've described above why a well-run government can see such wealth redistribution as vital to preserving the economic well-being of the nation.

I also notice that you haven't tried to argue that such an action is actually ethical. I give you credit for that, at least.

Click to expand...

It's VERY ethical, as I've shown above.

I see you think that a society's prosperity is a function of government taxation. I disagree with your economic theory

Click to expand...

No, I do not think that a society's prosperity is a function of government taxation...but I will absolutely state that a modern society cannot - repeat, cannot - function without government taxation. Now this would not have been the case in, say, the 1800's...but in the modern world? No. government - and the taxation that government needs to function - are absolutely crucial to modern society.

None of which addresses the issue of whether taking from A in order to give to B is ethical.

Click to expand...

I believe I've shown why it's not only ethical, but absolutely necessary in the modern world.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

iguanaman said:

Every economist knows there is no such thing as a real free market. You need to start over from there.

Click to expand...

It certainly isn't as "free" as it once was especially since Obama and the Progressives rode into town.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

iguanaman said:

Every economist knows there is no such thing as a real free market. You need to start over from there.

Click to expand...

No, there IS a 'real free market' - it's right there in the pages of 'Atlas Shrugged'! Never mind that such are never found in the real world, we all know we should never question the shark-mounted laser-beam logic of the oh-so-holy-sociopath-fetishist Ayn Rand lest we be cast out to the Left Coast where there be whaling and bleaching of teeth!

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Jack Hays said:

The REMC members were the individuals the project was done for.

Click to expand...

There was 100 members originally, so exactly how did they cover the cost and make the work profitable? I sure hope you aren't trying to add people to the group for your argument.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Henrin said:

Ok, so explain to me how taxation creates wealth. Explain to me how the government removing wealth from the economy actually adds wealth to the economy. Go ahead and try it if you want. Oh right, you don't think taxing income is removing wealth. Even if money is wealth. :lol:

Click to expand...

I can do that - it's not hard to understand. But I asked you first for examples of how tax revenue removes wealth from an economy (except for that which is sent overseas - and even then it's usually not wasted). Once you answer that one - correctly - then you'll be ready to learn how government taxation is absolutely crucial to a modern society.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Glen Contrarian said:

No, there IS a 'real free market' - it's right there in the pages of 'Atlas Shrugged'! Never mind that such are never found in the real world, we all know we should never question the shark-mounted laser-beam logic of the oh-so-holy-sociopath-fetishist Ayn Rand lest we be cast out to the Left Coast where there be whaling and bleaching of teeth!

Click to expand...

It is accurate to say that the Constitution protects a free-market capitalist economic system to a significant degree, most importantly by protecting private property and contractual rights. These rights are essential to the functioning of a market economy. The Constitution was not written by Ayn Rand, but instead by James Madison and other practical politicians who believed deeply in protecting individual liberty and property from government tyranny. So I suggest you revisit the Constitution because it is because of the violations against it that the wheels on the bus are no longer going round and round.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Glen Contrarian said:

I can do that - it's not hard to understand. But I asked you first for examples of how tax revenue removes wealth from an economy (except for that which is sent overseas - and even then it's usually not wasted). Once you answer that one - correctly - then you'll be ready to learn how government taxation is absolutely crucial to a modern society.

Click to expand...

No, you can't. Since the money they are removing from the economy is wealth there is nothing you can say to support your argument.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

vesper said:

Baloney. But your thinking some could say is extreme. You focus on those who have more as being unfair. It is envy not compassion. You begin with the rich and when the wealth of the 1 percent no longer is sufficient for what you want you will then hone in on ever smaller subsets of the rich. Well not everyone seeks to be wealthy. A minister or a farmer certainly doesn't chose their professions because it is going to make them wealthy. A 25 year old isn't going to know the wealth of a 65 year old who has spent a lifetime earning it. And there seems to be a growing number in our society willing to destroy their lives through drug addictions/crime/failure to seek all the advantages of an education/reproducing children before they can even provide for themselves. Yet you throw all classes into one pile and then claim income inequality instead of focusing on the rights afforded to all to pursue wealth in a free market society if they so choose.

Click to expand...

If it's envy and not compassion, then why did Adam Smith - the "Father of Capitalism" - say that higher taxes for the rich "is but equitable"? Was that envy on his part? Is it envy on Warren Buffet's part when he says it's right and necessary?

I've done fairly well for several years now (even through a bankruptcy and foreclosure) - I support progressive taxes even though I pay a higher rate, but I'm not the least envious of those who are truly rich. In fact, I've often said that if someone were to offer to give me $10M today, I'd probably refuse it because of all the problems it brings, how it might affect my family.

No, vesper, the 'envy' meme is simply that - a meme, a grand assumption that the poor want higher taxes for the rich simply because they're jealous. If you'd really try to get to know liberals, you'll likely find that most of us are regular people like you, that we have a LOT more in common than you think...

...just as you probably get sick and tired of hearing liberals on here make sweeping assumptions about conservatives, too. Right?

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Henrin said:

No, you can't. Since the money they are removing from the economy is wealth there is nothing you can say to support your argument.

Click to expand...

So you state a second time that taxes are 'removing money from the economy'. Examples, please.

I mean, if you're so positive that taxes take money out of an economy, then it should be simplicity itself for you to provide examples...so here's your soapbox! Three examples! That's all I ask!

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

vesper said:

It is accurate to say that the Constitution protects a free-market capitalist economic system to a significant degree, most importantly by protecting private property and contractual rights. These rights are essential to the functioning of a market economy. The Constitution was not written by Ayn Rand, but instead by James Madison and other practical politicians who believed deeply in protecting individual liberty and property from government tyranny. So I suggest you revisit the Constitution because it is because of the violations against it that the wheels on the bus are no longer going round and round.

Click to expand...

Like how the Constitution enshrines the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce?

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Glen Contrarian said:

Like how the Constitution enshrines the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce?

Click to expand...

Are you using the modern definition or the 1787 definition?

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

SBu said:

Nice, cite one company to prove your theory that there is no work. You should know better that McDonalds can't and shouldn't employ the whole country. I stand by my argument. If you are out of work for 2+ years, it's your own fault.

Click to expand...

There is a easy way to find out if you are correct.
Provide a job (living wage/benefits) to anyone willing & able to work.
If you are right there will be no takers & thus no cost.
What is there to lose?

Anyone who objects to the cost is admitting that significant involuntary unemployment does, in fact, exist.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Glen Contrarian said:

So you state a second time that taxes are 'removing money from the economy'. Examples, please.

I mean, if you're so positive that taxes take money out of an economy, then it should be simplicity itself for you to provide examples...so here's your soapbox! Three examples! That's all I ask!

Click to expand...

I have already explained my position. I have no reason to go over the same thing repeatedly with you.

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Glen Contrarian said:

If it's envy and not compassion, then why did Adam Smith - the "Father of Capitalism" - say that higher taxes for the rich "is but equitable"? Was that envy on his part? Is it envy on Warren Buffet's part when he says it's right and necessary?

I've done fairly well for several years now (even through a bankruptcy and foreclosure) - I support progressive taxes even though I pay a higher rate, but I'm not the least envious of those who are truly rich. In fact, I've often said that if someone were to offer to give me $10M today, I'd probably refuse it because of all the problems it brings, how it might affect my family.

No, vesper, the 'envy' meme is simply that - a meme, a grand assumption that the poor want higher taxes for the rich simply because they're jealous. If you'd really try to get to know liberals, you'll likely find that most of us are regular people like you, that we have a LOT more in common than you think...

...just as you probably get sick and tired of hearing liberals on here make sweeping assumptions about conservatives, too. Right?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but for many I do think envy has much to do with it. I also think people being made to believe they are "victims" and deserving of another's fruits of labor has something to do with it as well. As does the loss of personal responsibility in society in general. This country affords all the right to pursue their own dreams. Some dreams don't involve wealth. Others do. A person that pursues wealth in an honest fashion should not be penalized for their success. Our system from its founding was never set up around force redistribution of wealth. That in itself violates our basic principles/rights. The whole concept of wealth redistribution is what Franklin warned about when people found out they could vote themselves money the Free Republic would be finished. With several decades of the left promoting redistribution to the point we now have almost 50% of citizens on some kind of government subsidy, a good number of folks have become addicted to "free" money at someone else's expense.