200 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Javik]

It is impossible for *some people*. Not everybody has the same intellectual and physical attributes, and some people simply don't have the skill sets needed to apply themselves to certain jobs.

[vanx]

Javik, on 17 July 2012 - 16:46, said:

It is impossible for *some people*. Not everybody has the same intellectual and physical attributes, and some people simply don't have the skill sets needed to apply themselves to certain jobs.

Where there are limitations outside of a person's control, I agree that their scope for high paying jobs may be limited to a greater extent than scope for low paying jobs.

[Javik]

And that's what is analogous to my original point. There's nothing fair about punishing those people to a greater degree than the rich, they simply cannot afford to absorb the cost. And if they cannot do a great deal to better their lot, why do they deserve to be punished for it?

[z0phi3l]

Veiva, on 03 July 2012 - 23:51, said:

Do you think that the CEO of Wal-Mart does not give back? What about the CEO and managers of Microsoft? The local donut shop in your town?

They HAVE to believe that the rich are not giving back or their whole marxist stance starts to fall apart, hence no matter how much proof to the contrary, Marxist still insist that the rich "stole" or "took advantage" of the poor, and that's the failure of marxism, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny once you use reality and valid data, and why even the "lite socialist" countries are slowly moving away from it

[Javik]

The majority of the rich don't have any interest in giving back, that's a fact. They don't have a tendency to move their money offshore or look for tax loopholes because they really love Swiss banks you know.

[vanx]

Javik, on 17 July 2012 - 16:57, said:

And that's what is analogous to my original point. There's nothing fair about punishing those people to a greater degree than the rich, they simply cannot afford to absorb the cost. And if they cannot do a great deal to better their lot, why do they deserve to be punished for it?

I'm not saying that poor should be punished more or punished at all. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that rich should not have to be paying higher percentage of tax on their income just because the government decided that they (rich) can absorb the cost.

[ccoltmanm]

I don't get this question... why would we tax someone more than others? Why punish someone for succeeding?
?

[nicconics]

tHaCuBe, on 03 July 2012 - 15:32, said:

think about that. if people know making over 1 million, they're going to be taxed 90-100% like you voted, what motivation would anyone have to make over 1 million? sounds great until you realize CEOs and entrepreneurs who work hard to get where they are make a lot of what we have possible. sure, they make A LOT more than the average, but why should they be forced to pay more than anyone else? I say tax them the same 35% that is in place now, but require them to pay that tax regardless of investments, etc. 35% of all income is enough for anyone to be taxed

The problem is, most of them them now "dont work hard" its all in inherentence. Unless they started their own company, and stayed with it throughout the thick and thin you cannot say they earned their position.

[ccoltmanm]

nicconics, on 17 July 2012 - 18:23, said:

The problem is, most of them them now "dont work hard" its all in inherentence. Unless they started their own company, and stayed with it throughout the thick and thin you cannot say they earned their position.

Are you just spewing garbage for the sake of it? Try 69% of people earned their money from the ground up. Less than 10%, closer to 6% actually inherited it. Your opinion is becoming more and more worthless the more you speak without facts backing it up. Learning what an educated discussion is. This is not a place to spew political agendas.

http://wealthmanagem...nning/richistan
http://www.consumeri...d-their-wealth/

[Xilo]

vanx, on 17 July 2012 - 18:15, said:

I'm not saying that poor should be punished more or punished at all. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that rich should not have to be paying higher percentage of tax on their income just because the government decided that they (rich) can absorb the cost.

Again, because this doesn't work. Flat rate taxes only causes disparity between the classes and furthers the poor get poorer and rich get richer scenario. Lower classes suffer the most while upper classes barely feel a hit. And you know what happens when the gap becomes too large? Complete collapse of economy and government. Go read your history.

Besides, the government has to make up this deficit somehow if they did a flat rate. This money won't come from out of no where.

[ccoltmanm]

Xilo, on 17 July 2012 - 18:35, said:

Again, because this doesn't work. Flat rate taxes only causes disparity between the classes and furthers the poor get poorer and rich get richer scenario. Lower classes suffer the most while upper classes barely feel a hit. And you know what happens when the gap becomes too large? Complete collapse of economy and government. Go read your history.

Besides, the government has to make up this deficit somehow if they did a flat rate. This money won't come from out of no where.

LOL You are saying the current tiered system does not induce class disparity or class warfare? Well, maybe it does or it doesn't, but it's being USED to further class warfare (the rich should pay more, and we bottom 50% shouldn't pay a thing).

No, you make comments like the rich won't feel a hit, and that is just baloney. How do you know? Are you guessing? Ratios stay the same. Do you have a 40,000 a month property tax or almost that mortgage? Do you think money is infinite for the rich. Nonsense.

Who is to say a flat tax would/wouldn't fix anything, the current system isn't working. You want to make a bigger class gap, you let people not pay taxes, and you let the rich pay a lot of taxes. Then one will be mad at the other, and one will be counting on the other. It's not a nice scenario.

And the history scenario you mentioned also requires the rich to be in charge. We have a representative democracy. That isn't the same. Wouldn't work the way you think. Plus, we have 400 million people, not 6 million and 10,000 of them are the aristocratic. Things are different.

[HSoft]

DPyro, on 17 July 2012 - 15:16, said:

Ugh, not this again. Your not earning less money but making more. Evening after tax your still making more money.

Here's another video about income inequality

Of course you are earning less money. The government is taking more from you therefore you "earn" less of it. Most people judge what they earn on what they actually see, what they take home.
If you are taxed at 20% then you take home 80 cents on the dollar. If you are taxed at 40% then you only take home 60 cents. You are in effect earning less once you reach a certain threshold. Yes it's only taxed at that rate on monies earned above that threshold but once you get there you are still taking home less than you would have been if the tax was only 20%.

[Xilo]

ccoltmanm, on 17 July 2012 - 18:47, said:

LOL You are saying the current tiered system does not induce class disparity or class warfare? Well, maybe it does or it doesn't, but it's being USED to further class warfare (the rich should pay more, and we bottom 50% shouldn't pay a thing).

Protip. The lower and middle classes make up the majority of people.

ccoltmanm, on 17 July 2012 - 18:47, said:

No, you make comments like the rich won't feel a hit, and that is just baloney. How do you know? Are you guessing? Ratios stay the same. Do you have a 40,000 a month property tax or almost that mortgage? Do you think money is infinite for the rich. Nonsense.

Oh boohoo, they won't be able to buy the latest million dollar car or that 3rd home or that latest private jet. Big damn whoop. Also, no one said they had to buy a house with 40k monthly property taxes. Pretty sure if you can afford that, you can afford to pay more in taxes.

ccoltmanm, on 17 July 2012 - 18:47, said:

And the history scenario you mentioned also requires the rich to be in charge. We have a representative democracy. That isn't the same. Wouldn't work the way you think. Plus, we have 400 million people, not 6 million and 10,000 of them are the aristocratic. Things are different.

If the government was truly a representative government, then it would be feasible for anyone (within the legal limits) to become a politician. However, you have to be pretty wealthy to get elected due to outrageous campaign costs and such. You don't see lower or middle class politicians. They are are all rich. Guess what? They do what's in their best interests. The entire government is ran by the rich and corporations. That's hardly representative.

[DPyro]

I can understand about having millions of dollars. There's meaningful freedom that comes with that, but once you get much beyond that I have to tell you, it's the same hamburger.

Bill Gates.

[Javik]

As I pointed out in another thread, before capitalism it was common for communities to band together and help each other. Those with often helped those without, and *pause for gasp* they even healed the sick for free! Now if you do it, you just get told that you're a horrible un-American socialist. There's nothing upstanding or righteous about being a greedy SOB.