Tax Cuts Are Nothing More Than Theft...

[samsmart]

that's really inane dude.

Then why don't you easily refute it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then why don't you easily refute it?

Its obvious to anyone who bothers to think. You tax hike proponents never want to deal with the addiction that the current system allows and the end game problems that causes. its government that gives tax breaks and I have no problem with massive tax cuts across the board. I do have problems with jacking up taxes for those who already pay too much since that encourages others to continue to vote for irresponsible spenders

 

[Teh Internets]

well maybe the poor should stop voting for politicians who want to spend and spend while increasing taxes on others
and how do you know -=plenty of rich people are not able to afford more taxes without cutting back on spending they want to do now. Since you won't and the poor won't why should the rich

after all they already pay MORE than their share so why should say a guy who has three kids at Ivy league colleges have to cut back on say a new car so the poor can shirk their responsibilities

most people who are poor are so due to poor choices

The rich person has to cut back on a car.
The poor person might have to work two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent.
You cannot assume the poor shirk their responsibilities, they might but most probable don't. The rich pay more than their share because they siffer the least from paying the extra money compared to the poor and the middle class.

 

[Goshin]

...if they result in the erosion of basic public infrastructure. You did not create the money in your paycheck out of thin air - it resulted from opportunities provided to you by the whole of our society's institutions. Failing to adequately contribute to the maintenance of those institutions is theft. The definition of "adequately" is debatable within the bounds of reason, but the existence of the obligation is not.

If most of my tax money went to "infrastructure", I might agree with you to some degree. The problem is most of my tax burden is given away in social programs, mostly to people who could work if they really wanted to. (ie wealth redistribution)

I don't consider that part of my nation's functional infrastructure.

 

[Animus]

gasoline taxes are use taxes

claiming tax cuts are thefts while ignoring the fact that almost half the country don't pay the taxes that fund stuff that they use at rates higher or as high as those who do is the real theft

Poor people pay less taxes because they're more productive. In other words, they get paid a little for a lot of work.

Wealthy people are less productive. They get paid alot for a little work. Rich people utilize the skills and labor of poor/middle class people to make money.

 

[haymarket]

Income is not created out of thin air, it is a trade. To trade the labor of one's hands in exchange for the fruits of another's labor. If there are any opportunities afforded to the individual in that transaction, it is in spite of, and not due to, societies institutions of governance. An obligation exists as the result of previously agreed upon conditions. Unless you can retrieve a transcript proving the prior consent of all parties, there is no legitimacy in the "obligation" you levy upon the citizenry.

If you are being forced to say here against your will you should alert the media at once. Otherwise,. Exercise those precious free market rights and find a place better suited to your liking.

 

[haymarket]

Its obvious to anyone who bothers to think. You tax hike proponents never want to deal with the addiction that the current system allows and the end game problems that causes. its government that gives tax breaks and I have no problem with massive tax cuts across the board. I do have problems with jacking up taxes for those who already pay too much since that encourages others to continue to vote for irresponsible spenders

which is pretty obvious that in your mind that means Democrats rather than Republicans. Your real problem is with a Constitutional Amendment passed a century ago... and with the rest of the 20th century that followed it.

 

[TurtleDude]

The rich person has to cut back on a car.
The poor person might have to work two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent.
You cannot assume the poor shirk their responsibilities, they might but most probable don't. The rich pay more than their share because they siffer the least from paying the extra money compared to the poor and the middle class.

the rich person is not responsible for the lot of the poor person. YOur argument thus fails

 

[TurtleDude]

which is pretty obvious that in your mind that means Democrats rather than Republicans. Your real problem is with a Constitutional Amendment passed a century ago... and with the rest of the 20th century that followed it.

You are engaged in false mind reading. Try again

 

[haymarket]

from TurtleDude

YOur argument thus fails

My but you do say that with such force and authority! I notice that you have over 9,000 posts. How many did it take before the gave you the referee shirt so you can pronounce who is successful and who is not here? Is that in the rules and regs or is it just made up as you go along?

 

[TurtleDude]

from TurtleDude



My but you do say that with such force and authority! I notice that you have over 9,000 posts. How many did it take before the gave you the referee shirt so you can pronounce who is successful and who is not here? Is that in the rules and regs or is it just made up as you go along?

Much you have to learn my padawan apprentice

If not careful, seduced by the silly side of the force you shall be.

 

[RightinNYC]

Poor people pay less taxes because they're more productive. In other words, they get paid a little for a lot of work.

Wealthy people are less productive. They get paid alot for a little work. Rich people utilize the skills and labor of poor/middle class people to make money.

Uh, what exactly are you basing this on?

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh, what exactly are you basing this on?

you have to admit-when it comes to complete nonsense that was pretty original.

what skills of poor people does Jimmy Page, or Harrison Ford or Paul McCartney use?

 

[RightinNYC]

you have to admit-when it comes to complete nonsense that was pretty original.

what skills of poor people does Jimmy Page, or Harrison Ford or Paul McCartney use?

I'm interested in finding out how I can become one of these lazy rich people who doesn't have to work. Every high earner I know works 55-85 hours a week. Guess they're all just outliers.

 

[Harshaw]

Hell, when I get into the thick of it, I'm putting in 100-hour weeks. Somehow, I don't feel bad about making more than some who put in 40.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm interested in finding out how I can become one of these lazy rich people who doesn't have to work. Every high earner I know works 55-85 hours a week. Guess they're all just outliers.

become a dem office holder:mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

Roger Milliken, guy who is said to have single-handedly saved (some) of the textile industry in upstate SC. He's worth 400 million or more, he's over 70 years old, and works 80-100 hrs a week keeping on top of his businesses. He's been going like that for decades.

More power to him. I wouldn't be intrested in spending that much time working at something, all the way into what might well be my last decade of life, unless it was something I loved for its own sake and was passionate about. He's welcome to his money... IMO it came with too high a price tag. Bet you he's made a lot of personal sacrifices over the years, in time lost with his wife and kids for one.

 

[Animus]

I'm interested in finding out how I can become one of these lazy rich people who doesn't have to work. Every high earner I know works 55-85 hours a week. Guess they're all just outliers.

How high are we talking about here?

I'm talking about the "rich" people not upper middle class. What are these rich people producing that compensates for them earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour of work?

you have to admit-when it comes to complete nonsense that was pretty original.

what skills of poor people does Jimmy Page, or Harrison Ford or Paul McCartney use?

Coming from someone who knows nothing about the economy. Not surprising at all. Somehow you think that eliminating the foundation of the workforce is key to a perfect economy.

You still haven't proved why wealthy people are more productive. Oh wait you can't because they aren't.

 

[RightinNYC]

How high are we talking about here?

High enough to get shafted by Obama's tax plan.

I'm talking about the "rich" people not upper middle class. What are these rich people producing that compensates for them earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour of work?

Ah, so "rich" means "hundreds of thousands per hour?" Sounds a little different from what I've been hearing lately elsewhere.

Moreover, who are you to decide whether these people are worth what they're earning? Are you writing their paychecks?

You still haven't proved why wealthy people are more productive. Oh wait you can't because they aren't.

A doctor/lawyer who works 70 hrs a week is more productive than a guy who spends 37 hrs a week mopping floors at McDonalds. Confirm/Deny?

 

[TurtleDude]

How high are we talking about here?

I'm talking about the "rich" people not upper middle class. What are these rich people producing that compensates for them earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour of work?




Coming from someone who knows nothing about the economy. Not surprising at all. Somehow you think that eliminating the foundation of the workforce is key to a perfect economy.

You still haven't proved why wealthy people are more productive. Oh wait you can't because they aren't.

well in many cases its obvious

top athletes win prize money and get endorsements at arms length deals. top actors are believed to bring in millions of extra ticket sales. musicians like U2 or Led Zeppelin-once again its a function of how many people are willing to buy their records or their tickets.

I forget more about economics than you will ever know. My personal application of economics to my environment is highly successful

your rants about the wealthy demonstrate you have failed in the same area

 

[TurtleDude]

Roger Milliken, guy who is said to have single-handedly saved (some) of the textile industry in upstate SC. He's worth 400 million or more, he's over 70 years old, and works 80-100 hrs a week keeping on top of his businesses. He's been going like that for decades.

More power to him. I wouldn't be intrested in spending that much time working at something, all the way into what might well be my last decade of life, unless it was something I loved for its own sake and was passionate about. He's welcome to his money... IMO it came with too high a price tag. Bet you he's made a lot of personal sacrifices over the years, in time lost with his wife and kids for one.

same reason why I went back to Cincinnati to work in a good law firm rather than taking the offers I got from big NYC firms like Jackson and Lewis or Philly firms like Morgan Lewis etc. I had other interests in addtion to the law and at those firms the pay is tops but so is the demands to bill 50-60 hours a week.

I have no envy of classmates of mine who made it to managing partner on wall street and now make a couple million a year. they earned every penny of it

 

[Animus]

High enough to get shafted by Obama's tax plan.
A doctor/lawyer who works 70 hrs a week is more productive than a guy who spends 37 hrs a week mopping floors at McDonalds. Confirm/Deny?

The guy at McDonalds makes $6 an hour.

Let's say the lawyer makes $200 an hour. Does his work produce 33 times more than the McDonald's worker?

 

[RightinNYC]

The guy at McDonalds makes $6 an hour.

Let's say the lawyer makes $200 an hour. Does his work produce 33 times more than the McDonald's worker?

His boss thinks so.

 

[Mensch]

...if they result in the erosion of basic public infrastructure. You did not create the money in your paycheck out of thin air - it resulted from opportunities provided to you by the whole of our society's institutions. Failing to adequately contribute to the maintenance of those institutions is theft. The definition of "adequately" is debatable within the bounds of reason, but the existence of the obligation is not.

So, the majority can issue tax hikes that equal 99% of the income of all wealthy patrons, since the average human being can obviously afford to live on less than $20,000 a year? Most of us here are not anarchists, meaning we're willing to live with a certain amount of taxation in order to maintain a small government that protects our rights. The question of infrastructure is an important one. If I forcibly take money out of your pocket to invest in infrastructure that I deem necessary and appropriate, would you mind? Is it ok to tax millions of dollars out of the California taxpayer in order to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Or how about taxing New Yorkers to pay for churches in the South? What about taxing everyone higher rates in order to ensure people in Detroit maintain their high-wage union jobs? Or how about taxing everyone higher rates in order to bail out "too big to fail" banks because this could obviously be argued as a "investment" in "infrastructure." What say you?

The question is ALWAYS the role of government and what kind of taxation? As the old saying goes, there are only two things in life that are certain: death and taxes. The question we all would like you to answer is what kind of taxation, what kind of government expenditure, and HOW MUCH are we willing to forcibly remove from the private sector in order to promote a public sector investment? If the stimulus bill created x number of jobs at a cost of roughly 200,000 dollars per job, how well is the money being spent? How does it make sense to create private jobs by forcibly removing wealth from the private sector in order to redistribute it somewhere else? Investments are one thing, but what good is an investment if you have no say in how much will be taken from you, or where the money will be spent, or exactly how much you will gain from this investment?

 

[Animus]

well in many cases its obvious

top athletes win prize money and get endorsements at arms length deals. top actors are believed to bring in millions of extra ticket sales. musicians like U2 or Led Zeppelin-once again its a function of how many people are willing to buy their records or their tickets.

I forget more about economics than you will ever know. My personal application of economics to my environment is highly successful

your rants about the wealthy demonstrate you have failed in the same area

OH yes. I am sitting here living off welfare while people like you pay for it. Tsk, tsk. You certainly are demonstrating your class.

Using your examples lets say we have two professionals, one is a teacher and the other is an entertainer. Provided that both are at the top of their fields, what exactly does the entertainer produce that outweighs the production of the teacher? or the doctor? or the lawyer?

Ofcourse you're also missing the other side of the argument, why are entertainers rich? Because the support of the masses make them so. Why bite the hands that feed you?