The 2 percent rich can absorb a higher tax, the other 98 percent can't

[Harshaw]

You mean they skipped Tort Shields in your 1L classes?

I wrote my Note on Contract Swords.

Yeah. Mine was on Boilerplate Mail.

 

[Technocrat]

Crackheads (or the people they buy crack from) don't purchase things in the regular economy?

Fine, fight the hypo. Let's create a program that gives huge stimulus checks to law abiding citizens who have more than $50k in credit card debt. Does that sound better?

NO.

How about we just cut federal spending to what is enumerated in the Constitution. All of us would see favorite programs go (NASA would be the one I would miss most), but it would cut the heck out of spending.

Back to the original premis of this thread.
I will stipulate they probably can "absorb" another 2% (how that affects the economy deserves it's own thread anyway). But why should they have to? (Without the class warfare retoric this time please.)
It is still their money we are talking about, not ours.

 

[OscarB63]

that is the cost of living in this great country
pity you are unaware of this

too bad there are so many freeloaders that expect "the rich" to pay their way. why should the rich have to pay to live in this great country and the poor get paid (via EIC, etc) to live here?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Every dollar devoted to the middle class causes the economy to grow three times faster than a dollar for the rich, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The reason why is the 98 percent spend 95 percent of what they earn.

ricksfolly

Why can't someone in the middle class afford to pay morei n taxes?
Last I looked even our poor lived lavishly with extra pocket cash to toss around.

If all someone (middle class) does with their money is buy designer clothes, high end coffee routinely or cigarettes every week then perhaps they won't miss it, either.

After learning about the French revolution of 1789 - how it started (the tax issue) I don't feel the Middle OR upper class should be exempt.
But I also feel that if the government (state or fed) are going to increase taxes - they should make an effort to reign in their excessive spending.

This is why, though, the smartest and most effect thing to do would be to abolish the income tax - and apply and increase other taxes like usage and so forth. I, overall, feel that my income is none of the government's business - and if they taxes, more, on those who spend more then those individuals would only have themselves to complain to about their excessive taxation.

This would reward frugality and the savvy shopper (unlike everything we do, now, which does the opposite) - as well as not affect the people who don't have that money to spend, anyway.

 

[OscarB63]

Why can't someone in the middle class afford to pay morei n taxes?
Last I looked even our poor lived lavishly with extra pocket cash to toss around.

If all someone does with their money is buy designer clothes, high end coffee routinely or cigarettes every week then perhaps they won't miss it, either.

After learning about the French revolution of 1789 - how it started (the tax issue) I don't feel the Middle OR upper class should be exempt.
But I also feel that if the government (state or fed) are going to increase taxes - tehy should make an effort to reign in their excessive spending.

what gets me is all these "poor" people who you see crying about how they can't afford healthcare or they can't afford to get higher education, but they can afford to spend $300/month on cigarettes and $400/month on beer or they can afford to put a $8K set of spinning rims on their 1985 cadillac eldorado.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

what gets me is all these "poor" people who you see crying about how they can't afford healthcare or they can't afford to get higher education, but they can afford to spend $300/month on cigarettes and $400/month on beer or they can afford to put a $8K set of spinning rims on their 1985 cadillac eldorado.

Yep, I agree with this, too.

People continually put excess before necessity - but now they're expecting the government to provide what they don't want to provide for theirselves.

I suggested that same thing a long time ago in a debate (give up excesses if it's a priority to you) - and someone actually argued that "but healthcare is so expensive" as a reason why they wouldn't attempt to cover it for their self.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You mean they skipped Tort Shields in your 1L classes?

I wrote my Note on Contract Swords.

It was probably mentioned in Business Entities class, actually. But please, keep making jokes like that, it exposes your ignorance for everybody to see.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, I do not get the idea. "government-enforced tort liability shield"? Not in any industry where I have worked.

Then you must have never worked for a corporation, a limited liability company, a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership, or a limited liability limited partnership.

Or, more likely, you are just unaware of the fact that you have worked in an industry protected by government tort liability shields.

 

[Harshaw]

Then you must have never worked for a corporation, a limited liability company, a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership, or a limited liability limited partnership.

Or, more likely, you are just unaware of the fact that you have worked in an industry protected by government tort liability shields.

Cite the exact sections of code which provide for these "government tort liability shields."

 

[Paschendale]

Question... Clearly, what we have here is the conflict of two groups of people with opposing rights. And by rights, I mean it in a moral sense, not a legal one, since what this thread is about is what the legal ones should or should not be, based on moral rights. In a moral sense, a person should not go without the things they need, be it housing, health, food, education, etc. Also, a person should have the right to their property and the fruits of their labors. The issue where is when the fruits of the few are able to pay for the needs of the many.

In a moral sense, are we not obligated to provide for everyone's needs first, and then allow extra benefits to be acquired? Why is it permissible to allow anyone to be hungry, or be homeless, or be harmed by sickness? Don't we have an obligation to protect our neighbors from this suffering? Taxes and programs and such are an attempt to achieve this goal.

I don't know or care what percentage of a person's income should or should not be taxed. I just know that someone should never have to sleep in a car in the middle of a snowstorm.

 

[Harshaw]

Moral imperatives and what ought to be legal requirements are two very different things.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Cite the exact sections of code which provide for these "government tort liability shields."

Why, do you dispute the fact that limited liability exists?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Here's something very interesting:

It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.

I would love to see any of the so-called libertarians here try to make a persuasive argument against Rothbard here. But how could they when they are flailing so badly in an argument with little ole me?

 

[haymarket]

what gets me is all these "poor" people who you see crying about how they can't afford healthcare or they can't afford to get higher education, but they can afford to spend $300/month on cigarettes and $400/month on beer or they can afford to put a $8K set of spinning rims on their 1985 cadillac eldorado.

Its nice to see that narrow minded stereotyping has vanished from the culture in this new day of enlightenment.

 

[Thorgasm]

The ability to pay =/= justification for punsihment.

It's not punishment. It's a civic duty. We are at war. Ask not what your country can do for you and all that.

 

[Paschendale]

Moral imperatives and what ought to be legal requirements are two very different things.

What else are laws based on besides morality?

 

[phattonez]

Here's something very interesting:



I would love to see any of the so-called libertarians here try to make a persuasive argument against Rothbard here. But how could they when they are flailing so badly in an argument with little ole me?

What exactly is the problem with what he's saying?

 

[cpwill]

more foolish "thinking"

why would a business owner deprive himself of profits only because he would have to pay a greater portion of those earned profits as taxes

he or she wouldn't. what they will do, however, is deal with risk. hiring an employee is not a 'profit'; hiring an employee and seeing yourself able to keep a greater portion of production in terms of profits than they cost you is 'profit'. when you lower the portion of an employees' production going back to the employer, you make that employee less likely to generate a net profit for the employer, which means that 1) those employees already on the margin will have to go and 2) employers are less likely to invest the same amount of capital (in the form of employee compensation) in what is now a greater risk.

if hiring an employee = profit, then every business in the world could be guraunteed endless profits, merely through the magic of hiring people. but it doesn't. hiring an employee = a chance that profit will be created. when you reduce the possible profit created, you reduce the incentive to invest in an employee.

 

[cpwill]

Its nice to see that narrow minded stereotyping has vanished from the culture in this new day of enlightenment.

sadly it's truth. one of the reasons that poor people are and remain poor is because they have extremely poor financial planning, or seem to lack basic financial common sense.

it's not that hard:

live on less than you make
avoid debt
save and invest the extra


master those three basics and you have, what, 80% of your financial future covered.

 

[cpwill]

Really? And just what do we give them?

Everybody should pay taxes to cover essential services. Sadly, the portion of the population that receives the most in services, pays little or no tax. That section is not the top 2%, it is the bottom 50%

I am not one of the "evil rich" nor will I ever be. I just do not feel I have any right to their money.

If it is wrong for me to walk into their house (or yours for that matter) & take what I need, it is equally wrong to hire a politician to use the force of law to take it for me.

among those who support indefinitely extending all the bush tax cuts; only 8% make more than $150,000 a year. over half make less than $50,000.


reading that made me a little more hopeful for our future.

 

[Harshaw]

What else are laws based on besides morality?

Utility, of course.

 

[Harshaw]

Why, do you dispute the fact that limited liability exists?

I don't dispute that in the slightest. What I dispute is that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, what with tossing about the term "tort liability shields" as though it's a meaningful term. You obviously have no idea what limited liability really is. And it's hilarious.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What exactly is the problem with what he's saying?

There's no problem with it, it is a fantastic explanation of why government enforced business entities are unlibertarian. But some people who call themselves libertarians don't get that.

 

[phattonez]

There's no problem with it, it is a fantastic explanation of why government enforced business entities are unlibertarian. But some people who call themselves libertarians don't get that.

Corporporations are not necessarily unlibertarian. Most of the ones today are only still surviving because of corporatism, but it's not to say that corporations wouldn't exist in a capitalist framework.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Corporporations are not necessarily unlibertarian. Most of the ones today are only still surviving because of corporatism, but it's not to say that corporations wouldn't exist in a capitalist framework.

Right, that's what the whole Rothbard quote is about. The problem isn't the fact that groups of businessmen get together and agree to limit their investment liability by contract. The problem is that the government is forcing other people to abide by that contract.

Nobody can make a contract that takes away the away the rights of a third party who is not involved in the contract, don't you agree?