Folks who make more in income, can afford to pay a higher percentage in income tax. Its very simple.
The graduated income tax is fair, just, and right.
Your wish is starting to happen. And one day, all those who have bought into plucking the golden geese are gonna be really upset that the public teat upon which they daily suckle is starting to run dry. I think California is going to serve as a preview of that reality
I am not plucking the golden goose.... Just saying if it sucks so bad to live here, then MOVE
Folks who make more in income, can afford to pay a higher percentage in income tax. Its very simple.
The graduated income tax is fair, just, and right.
I am not plucking the golden goose.... Just saying if it sucks so bad to live here, then MOVE
:shrug: currently the middle class and the poor could afford to pay a higher percentage in income tax. Certainly I could - every month I have money left over that I label "savings". that you can afford to have more taken from you does not morally justify those who do the taking.
depends of the effect of taking that money. If it would somehow create a better life for all, then yes, it would be very moral to take that money.
I'd find it much more moral to "steal" your savings and to keep our gov from collapsing, then to allow our gov to collapse bringing your savings down with it.
But taxation is not a matter of morality, it's a matter of practicality. Some people on this forum claim that any taxation whatsoever, no matter how small or how neccessary is illmoral. Others on this forum think that having to pay the doc for healthcare serves is illmoral. Some think that it is illmoral to drive a car.
depends of the effect of taking that money. If it would somehow create a better life for all, then yes, it would be very moral to take that money. I'd find it much more moral to "steal" your savings and to keep our gov from collapsing, then to allow our gov to collapse bringing your savings down with it.
But taxation is not a matter of morality, it's a matter of practicality.
I agree. Avoiding the collapse of the state is a superior goal. But keeping the state from collapsing is also superior to maintaining entitlement spending - and unfortunately, what is collapsing our government is not revenue, it is spending. Our government's income has continued to grow geometrically while her spending has exploded and is currently set to continue to grow exponentially.
Renters ARE irreverent to the issue. They don't own anything, they aren't in charge of anything. They are renting property owned by someone else that is a responsible for what happens to it. The renter is just using it and paying for the use. Owners do rule, renters are irrelevant.
I'm not exactly sure why you think its wrong to pay the owner to use their property, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.
In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.
Voting has nothing to do with it. There is nothing that shows me from what I see they shouldn't be under the control of the people that own what they're using. There is no reason to believe that they should of equal footing as the owner that has to answer for anything that renter does and that paid for actual property.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are irrelevant because of the relationship they have with responsibility and the rights that come from ownership. Even the state holds them to no accord because of this if that is how you want to see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop this nonsense. A renter has no business being equal to a renter. If you wish to argue that a man that owns the property shouldn't be able to tell people that are using their property what to do, be my guest but I highly doubt your argument will have bearing on reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you realize that government holds down the majority more than anyone else you will be lost in a haze.
Try to make an argument that property owners shouldn't be in control of their property. Can you manage? Don't worry, I won't be waiting around for something that will never happen.
In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.
You can't really say the owners property would be a liability as its situational occurrence. Without a place to live these people are homeless. This kind of argument gets you nowhere but a circle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the way it is, yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The lease allows them to use the land, they don't have any rights to the land that trumps that of the owners by its existence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The renter has far more a need than the owner. You can try to pretend the need is the same on both sides, but its really not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not the government, the people that govern us are. This tried argument of we the people are the government is a falsity. Always has been and always will be.
If he wishes to have lower rent he needs to move to a different area that has lower demand. San Diego I would imagine is a very bad place to rent or own if you want low prices.
Think about it for a minute. Just pretend you're a detached mind for a sec.
In this country the formula for how much rent one can afford is no more than 25% of ones gross income. (Here in San Diego the reality is closer to 30%).
So someone who doesn't own a home is required by law to pay 25% of their pre-tax income to a landlord.
You can choose BETWEEN landlords, but you can't choose to not have a landlord without becoming an owner yourself.
(Funny, composing this just now makes me wonder how this relates to the mandate in the healthcare bill. If I'm not paying rent now, can the govt. force me to begin to pay rent?)
But back to my point.
The fact that there is no legal alternative to not paying makes it a TAX for all intents and purposes.
If you were offering me the opportunity to move from my RV into your more comfortable and spacious home, then you would be offering me a service. Rent would be an option that I could take or leave, and I'm pretty sure prices would be lower.
This is NOT the case in America.
Here, you pay, or you are breaking the law.
Its not a personal issue, its an economic factor that few take into consideration.
Its something that people don't consider when tbeyre talking about who's paying taxes, etc..
If you had to cough up 25% of your gross pay to someone under penalty of law, for something you could easily provide yourself for free, you might understand why poor people don't empathize with you for paying 25% of your gross in taxes under penalty of law for things you don't need.
It is the way the world works NOW, it wasn't always this way.
Have you ever seen a poor person win the lottery? What happens?
They spend it all and are poor again.
What would be the point?
I have always thought that the worst thing possible that we could do to poor people is to build "projects" and move all the poor people into them. The children grow up surrounded by poverty and learn to accept poverty as a perminate and normal condition.
When I was in the fourth grade I had a friend follow me home, we actually lived on the same street, but opposit ends of the street. The end that he lived on was full of shacks that are comparible with ones I have seen in 3rd world countries, then end I lived on was the beggining of a typical middleclass neighborhood. As we approached my house I pointed at it and told him "that is where I live". He said that it couldn't be. I asked him "why not". He explained that it "couldn't be" because it was a mansion (although it was a typical 1960's-1970's style split level home). Turns out that he had never been outside of his own neighborhood. The next school year, when we returned to school, and the teacher asked "what did everyone do for summer", I explained that my family had gone to Florida. My same friend said "that's impossible, it would cost too much".
About that same time my dad, who was a college professor, lost his job. He had a PhD and was hired at a college that was undergoing an evaluation for re-accreditation. The college hired several PhD's inorder to increase their stats, after the college was reaccredited they fired all of them. I mentioned to my friend that my dad had been fired, my friend said "the mill is hiring and they pay good money". I just didn't say anything. One person's "good money" is anothers poverty level wage.
Your state sucked. My state now gives merit based academic scholarships for instate colleges (in addition to any merit scholarships from the college or third parties). The state scholarships range from $2000 to over $7000 depending on just how well you did. My son got $5000.
actually I have met lots of trust fund idiots who are howling libs because they feel guilty while I rarely have met hard workers who are whiners
Here's one realistic option: 18-20 y/os who slave away at Wal-Mart or McDonald's can make considerably more selling skimpy images of themselves online.
Seems that if the CEOs of these stores are seen as having made their money by "selling their souls", so to speak, by exploiting young people, then the young people could easily do something similar, or at least, threaten to use it as a bargaining chip for higher wages. Capitalism, after all, is not for the thin-skinned.
giving money to the rich? do you labor under the delusion that a tax cut is giving someone money?
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?