- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
lets cut the crap-those who want progressive taxes do so because of class envy
Thats EXACTLY why I support inheritance tax. Inheritance tax serves the purpose of redistributing wealth, but only after the person who created the wealth is finish with it. And it constantly redistributes wealth each and ever year so that in 50 more years we don't have to worry about redistribuing again. If "winners win" then indivudals who are winners will be able to become rich without the aid of inheritance. If "loosers loose" they really dont deserve any "free money" that they didn't earn to begin with.
Because there is a base amount (personal exemption and standard deduction) that none of us have to pay tax on. Since most of us are not rich, we gain most of the tax advantage that the base amount creates. Thats the way it should be. By the way, I am not so sure that your numbers are valid, what are you defining rich as being, and where did you find that particular set of numbers? I am not saying those figures are wrong, just that I may tend to interpret them differently - such as the rich may actually pay 40% of the taxes, but it is highly likely that there "excess" income is something more like 99% of all "excess" income (defining "excess" as income that is above any normal wage or value of physical/mental effort put forth in creating it).
I dont know so much about that. The rich are rich because of our system of government and what the govenment provides. I would say that the rich pay more in taxes because they reap more of the benefits provided by government - thats why they are rich.
Really, what's it matter to a poor person if he gets robbed? He didn't loose much. But if a rich man gets robbed, he can loose millions. So wouldn't you agree that the rich man benefits more from our police and military and fire protection than the poor guy?
I agree with the class warfare part. People who think it died or doesn't exist are deluding themselves.
What creates class warfare is a widening of the gap between the wealthy socially privileged and the underprivileged working poor. Many wealthy have done nothing or do very little compared to working class citizens.. They don't have to.
Your argument does not get to the heart of the matter. The axiom of needs having cost to live in a capitalist society is a greater cost to low income people then wealthy. The wealthy spend a microscopic percentage of their money on needs. Hence forth in a consumer market where such a large percentage of the population lives and works a flat tax is disproportionately punishing to the working class.
A flat tax is less fair to the working class and increases the wealth of the upper economic strata by differing it to lower incomes.
A flat tax is not appropriate a progressive taxation is by far more egalitarian and fair. Arguing the rich deserve all the money they have is blatantly morally and intellectually dishonest. One can only rationalise that it is done out of shear political ideological partisanship and nauseating to anyone with a sense of fairness. You have no argument. You are suggesting working poor don't work? The wealthy deserve what they get from swindling the poor on cost of labour and selling the goods derived from that at a higher value then they paid for it.
your idiotic attacks on the rich that assume the rich somehow did something improper destroys and credibility you have on the issue. Does Elton John or the Eagles swindle people by charging 100 dollars a ticket? How about Andy Roddick making a few million a year hitting a tennis ball? what about a top doctor who has more people demanding his services than he has time? WTF have they swindled?
those who whine that the rich are rich due to cheating sounds like a poor loser.
Very true. The ruling class tends to make our tax laws, and they make them to benefit themselves. The ruling class voted themselves billions in bailout money, they got their hands of billions of the spendulous money, they created president for the government socializing losses whenever the losses are made by the ruling class. The ruling class has very much declared war on the masses.
Your are correct to the extent that those particular individuals did not swindle anyone. But they do live in a society that created such an economic atmospher in which they were able to become insainly rich. Is it to much to ask for them to pay a good portion in return for the benefits of our society that they have so fortunately enjoyed? There are other individuals though who have obtained great wealth in not so admirable circumstances. As long as great wealth can be obtained honorable, and moraly, and within our laws, there is nothing wrong with obtaining great wealth - just be prepared to pay up.
So far I have not seen any post by anyone sugggesting that we should sieze all the wealth of anyone. Most very rich people could afford a much higher rate of taxation and their lifestyle will not suffer one iota from it. However if you tax any one additional dollar from the average persons wage, they will at some point in their life be poorer for it.
the vast majority of millionaires are first-generation. small business owners and the like.
Why are we discussing the "vast majority of millionaires"? The vast majority of millionaires aint rich! The old lady down the street that saved all her life and now has a million bucks in the bank has nothing to do with anything. Except for real estate and cars we generally do not tax wealth in America, only income. The vast majority of millionaires are not even in the top income tax bracket.
I'd say that income redistributionists and class warfare experts constantly say that but in reality its nonsense. Rich are rich because they engage in behavior that others find valuable. The government doesn't give them that wealth.
I refer again to the school situation-those who make top grades and get valuable scholarships aren't given anything more than the C students or the flunk outs. Why should a kid who busts his hump (even if his valedictorian award is aided by natural talent and caring parents that the flunk outs don't have) have to pay more for his public schooling than a class clown who comes to school stoned or hung over and never does his homework? BOth were given the same opportunities by the government yet the outcome is very different. taxes should be based on that opportunity not the Grade Point Average
Why are we discussing the "vast majority of millionaires"? The vast majority of millionaires aint rich! The old lady down the street that saved all her life and now has a million bucks in the bank has nothing to do with anything. Except for real estate and cars we generally do not tax wealth in America, only income. The vast majority of millionaires are not even in the top income tax bracket.
GPA is a progressive measure.
that is a clever attempt at avoiding the point. A for effort, Fail for rebuttal
Ok, your right.
Of course, 4.0 counts for grades 96-100. Why would we do that? Are we soaking the smart people, taking away their well deserved perecentage points?
since you want to avoid my point about people being given the same opportunities but not the same results lets ask this
What would happen to the overall rate of knowledge acquisition if a teacher gave everyone the same grade no matter how they did? What would be the incentive to be a top scholar if you had to give half of your A grades to someone who made D's-be his poor grades are due to lack of intelligence, lack of a stable family or lack of effort?>
I realize what would happen, you have proven the failures of communism and the costs of equality very well. My point was for a progressive tax system, not communist russia. Why do we give everyone who gets 96-100% the same result, a 4.0 GPA. Stability, those people have worked very hard for a 100%, it would be terrible for them to lose it all by dropping 1%.
That's true of many self-made entrepreneurs but it definitely cannot be generalized to the wealthy classes as a whole. In fact, capitalist elites have been in bed with the State from the beginning. They rely on the banditry of the State for their largesse. If this were not true they would throw their support behind libertarians and even anarchists. Clearly they do not which is why the Libertarian Party performs so poorly in elections. For starters I recommend an eye-opening and well-written essay by Kevin Carison: The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege.I'd say that income redistributionists and class warfare experts constantly say that but in reality its nonsense. Rich are rich because they engage in behavior that others find valuable. The government doesn't give them that wealth
We've had "fair' throughout the history of humanity.since you want to avoid my point about people being given the same opportunities but not the same results lets ask this
What would happen to the overall rate of knowledge acquisition if a teacher gave everyone the same grade no matter how they did? What would be the incentive to be a top scholar if you had to give half of your A grades to someone who made D's-be his poor grades are due to lack of intelligence, lack of a stable family or lack of effort?>
That's true of many self-made entrepreneurs but it definitely cannot be generalized to the wealthy classes as a whole. In fact, capitalist elites have been in bed with the State from the beginning. They rely on the banditry of the State for their largesse. If this were not true they would throw their support behind libertarians and even anarchists. Clearly they do not which is why the Libertarian Party performs so poorly in elections. For starters I recommend an eye-opening and well-written essay by Kevin Carison: The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege.
We've had "fair' throughout the history of humanity.
Some people for reason of IQ, knack, or other advantage (including inheritance), end up with all the marbles.
Look back at the planet 500 years or 5000 years.
What would happen is a system of Lords and Serfs.. landowners/servants/slaves.
Or look back at this very country 100 years and why they instituted the income tax in the first place; The robber barrons Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, etc. While men in virtual indenture servitude worked in mines, rail gangs, etc.
Then look a THIS country in the 1950's through the 1980s when the top marginal rate was a "Communist" 50%-91%. We grew like crazy with less income disparity.
Why bring in "Russia" .. we have US!
a progressive tax system along with a death confiscation tax was a main plank in the book that the Russian Communists claimed to follow
First let's be clear.so what. I don't have a moral duty to pay for your existence merely because you demand I do so. Your existence does not benefit me so why should I be forced to benefit you?
Now I believe in private charity (something Obama seems to want to cut back on) but that is different than being forced to pay for others.
Your existence is not a just claim on the wealth of others and I am not responsible or at fault for your situation
Those
First let's be clear.
If anyone is paying for anyone else tax-wise.. it's me for you.
[unlike you] I understand the economy/manage money and have been paying top rates when they were astronomical.
Second.
You didn't/Couldn't answer me.
Because as I pointed out.. what's "fair" (in the most brutal/simple sense) doesn't work.
You remember. Serfs and Castles.. JP Morgan, Rail gangs, and 300 servants.
That's your basic problem. How do you solve it?
Put 85% of the country on the whim of charity or let them have some self-respect?
You couldn't answer either when I pointed out this countries greatest growth and world ascendency was it's highest tax rates; During the Cold War. Porking your "Communist" ploy.
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?