1% needs to start paying their fair share of taxes >:

[Paul98]

Here are the main arguments I see made for not raising taxes. Well other than just not wanting the government to take more of their money.

1. Raising taxes won't solve the problem since even at a 100% tax rate it's not enough.
2. Raising taxes will just mean the government will spend more money.

Is that correct in my understanding?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The thievery here, is being done by the rich.

They are not willing to pay back into the systems that enabled to amass such wealth in the first place.

And many of the problems are created by those rich people in the first place.

Why should they have to if the system is going to waste it.

The system refuses to use the funds efficiently.

While the rich may have their money; they (and most others) do not like handing over their money to one that has not shown a willingness to earn it.

If a person can take $100 and use it to make something/improve themselves, that is one thing.

If the $100 is spent on items that are not needed for survival, that is another.

I do not trust the government to take my $100 and give it to someone that will not spend it on (example only) booze and tobacco.

If I know that the government will turn that $100 over to someone that wants to go to college or start up a small business; by all means increase my taxes by $100

Given the fraud in the government managed Section 8 market (and/or equivalent); that $100 gets wasted by bureaucracy.

If the government is going to purchase glass houses for the people that oversee the spending and hire another person to ensure that my $100 goes to the proper group; forget it.

 

[QuantumPion]

Here are the main arguments I see made for not raising taxes. Well other than just not wanting the government to take more of their money.

1. Raising taxes won't solve the problem since even at a 100% tax rate it's not enough.
2. Raising taxes will just mean the government will spend more money.

Is that correct in my understanding?

Indisputably. Although for #2 I would add that government will spend more money period, regardless of what they do with taxes

 

[sandorski]

Raising Taxes is not The Solution, it is part of The Solution.

Sorry.

 

[QuantumPion]

If I know that the government will turn that $100 over to someone that wants to go to college or start up a small business; by all means increase my taxes by $100

The problem is when government gives money for college, it goes to people majoring in gay cowboy poetry. $100 wasted. When the government gives money to businesses, it goes to things like Solyndra. $100 wasted. It doesn't really matter what the government spends money on, most of it goes to waste regardless.

If you receive free money, you're going to waste it. This is a property of human cognitive processes and can't be worked around. The only solution is to encourage/empower people to earn their own money.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A complete fallacy.

The rich benefit from the government services far more than the non-rich do. If they didn't, they wouldn't be rich.

Without those government services, their employees wouldn't be able to drive to work.

Without those government services, they wouldn't have educated, and qualified people to work for them.

Without those government services, they wouldn't have a functioning legal system to protect them.

Without those government services, they wouldn't have a healthy workforce.

Companies have no problem building a company town to take care of their employees.

It has worked many times in the past and still happens today in some areas.

Easier, faster and cheaper for the company to take care of the workers than sit back and expect the government to do so.

If a company wants /needs employees educated; they either require it up front or provide the education/training.

It is to the benefit of the government to be able to provide trained employees into the workforce. It is the government that drives them out.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The problem is when government gives money for college, it goes to people majoring in gay cowboy poetry. $100 wasted. When the government gives money to businesses, it goes to things like Solyndra. $100 wasted. It doesn't really matter what the government spends money on, most of it goes to waste regardless.

If you receive free money, you're going to waste it. This is a property of human cognitive processes and can't be worked around. The only solution is to encourage/empower people to earn their own money.

No argument that it can be wasted.

But it can become productive funds; depends on the oversight that is required and desired.

Yet as a taxpayer; I can usually tell what is a better government use of my taxes (waste avoidance) that some paper pusher who I am paying for anyhow. And because I am paying those taxes; I should have some say in where they are directed to.

 

[michal1980]

4) Obama is not a socialist or a communist. To suggest that he or is wife are shows a complete lack of understanding or willful ignorance of those terms. Our government and civil society provides the framework where one's individual efforts can result in success. We celebrate this fact. That isn't a socialist/communist concept - it is a uniquely American one. Liberals don't want to punish success or "take from those that work and are productive" as you put it, but they do want to perpetuate and improve the system on which that success is built. So put down the Ayn Rand crack pipe....or go ahead and go Galt on us. You will not be missed.

Really? That fact is celebrated for on the left. You guys have a funny way of showing it then. Always ragging on how the rich are ruining the country, taking from the poor, not paying their 'fair' (what is fair? please define). How evil the rich are, etc etc etc etc.

Its like the husband that beats his wife everyday, then says he does it because he loves her.

 

[Paul98]

Indisputably. Although for #2 I would add that government will spend more money period, regardless of what they do with taxes

Ok, then lets start with taking #1. Raising taxes won't solve the problem since even at a 100% tax rate it's not enough.

This is not a reasonable argument to not raise taxes, because sure spending along can fix the problem, but so can a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes. Just because raising taxes alone can't fix the problem doesn't mean raising taxes can't fix part of the problem.

as for #2, as you say the government will spend more money no matter what, so raising taxes and giving the government more money doesn't have any effect on how much they spend. Thus it is not a valid argument for not raising taxes, since they will spend money if it's there or not.

We need to cut spending on tons of programs, defense being one that we need to majorly cut. We can spend some more on things like nasa, and other small programs that offer huge benefits based on the small money spent. A combination of spending cuts and raising taxes, and not just that but a much better setup tax system so that the economy will grow much stronger. So that we will get more taxes based on the good economy and spend less, giving a one two punch that will help lower the debt.

I have no problem spending more money on worthwhile things, such as NASA, and other hitech science and engineering programs. Things that give the public a great return on their money. We just need to go and cut down on all the waste, and excess we have in the system.

 

[MovingTarget]

Really? That fact is celebrated for on the left. You guys have a funny way of showing it then. Always ragging on how the rich are ruining the country, taking from the poor, not paying their 'fair' (what is fair? please define). How evil the rich are, etc etc etc etc.

Its like the husband that beats his wife everyday, then says he does it because he loves her.

Hyperbole much? When the rich don't pay in enough to keep the system that enabled their accumulation of wealth running, of course we have a problem. We see the results of it now - increased concentration of wealth, slowing economic activity, decreased economic opportunity, increased poverty, crumbling infrastructure, etc. etc. We decreased taxes on the rich with the promise that it would result in more jobs. The rich either haven't kept up with their side of the bargain, or that bargain was bogus to begin with as it was really a front to increase their own personal power at the expense of the rest of us. And we're just supposed to....take it? The policies of the pro-rich crowd seem to be along the lines of "Thank you sir! May I have another!" :thumbsdown:

It isn't about hating the rich. Its about ensuring that we continue to function as a society.

 

[Veliko]

Why should they have to if the system is going to waste it.

The system refuses to use the funds efficiently.

While the rich may have their money; they (and most others) do not like handing over their money to one that has not shown a willingness to earn it.

If a person can take $100 and use it to make something/improve themselves, that is one thing.

If the $100 is spent on items that are not needed for survival, that is another.

I do not trust the government to take my $100 and give it to someone that will not spend it on (example only) booze and tobacco.

If I know that the government will turn that $100 over to someone that wants to go to college or start up a small business; by all means increase my taxes by $100

Given the fraud in the government managed Section 8 market (and/or equivalent); that $100 gets wasted by bureaucracy.

If the government is going to purchase glass houses for the people that oversee the spending and hire another person to ensure that my $100 goes to the proper group; forget it.

This is an inexcusable load of nonsense.

If the system is so bad, how was it that they were able to get so rich in the first place?

If the system didn't exist, then neither would their fortunes.

The system provides the roads, so that their employees can get to work.
The system provided the education that supplies them with employees.
The system provides a working legal environment, that protects their business.

If they hate the system so much, then they are free to pack their bags and go wherever a better system exists.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hyperbole much? When the rich don't pay in enough to keep the system that enabled their accumulation of wealth running, of course we have a problem. We see the results of it now - increased concentration of wealth, slowing economic activity, decreased economic opportunity, increased poverty, crumbling infrastructure, etc. etc. We decreased taxes on the rich with the promise that it would result in more jobs. The rich either haven't kept up with their side of the bargain, or that bargain was bogus to begin with as it was really a front to increase their own personal power at the expense of the rest of us. And we're just supposed to....take it? The policies of the pro-rich crowd seem to be along the lines of "Thank you sir! May I have another!" :thumbsdown:

It isn't about hating the rich. Its about ensuring that we continue to function as a society.

Jobs are created by the demand for a product.

The demand evaporated.

The is not the fallout of the rich.

If you guys are willing to work for nothing so be it.
Others are not.

A business should not have to run at a loss. It is better to close it down than bleed out capital.

 

[Veliko]

Companies have no problem building a company town to take care of their employees.

It has worked many times in the past and still happens today in some areas.

Easier, faster and cheaper for the company to take care of the workers than sit back and expect the government to do so.

If a company wants /needs employees educated; they either require it up front or provide the education/training.

It is to the benefit of the government to be able to provide trained employees into the workforce. It is the government that drives them out.

Which companies have built towns, without any assistance from the state?

The people who physically built these towns, where were they educated? How did they physically get from where they lived, to the place where they were working?

Every single rich person of today, is making use of the infrastructure that the millions of tax payers before them paid for.

 

[nextJin]

Ok, then lets start with taking #1. Raising taxes won't solve the problem since even at a 100% tax rate it's not enough.

This is not a reasonable argument to not raise taxes, because sure spending along can fix the problem, but so can a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes. Just because raising taxes alone can't fix the problem doesn't mean raising taxes can't fix part of the problem.

as for #2, as you say the government will spend more money no matter what, so raising taxes and giving the government more money doesn't have any effect on how much they spend. Thus it is not a valid argument for not raising taxes, since they will spend money if it's there or not.

We need to cut spending on tons of programs, defense being one that we need to majorly cut. We can spend some more on things like nasa, and other small programs that offer huge benefits based on the small money spent. A combination of spending cuts and raising taxes, and not just that but a much better setup tax system so that the economy will grow much stronger. So that we will get more taxes based on the good economy and spend less, giving a one two punch that will help lower the debt.

I have no problem spending more money on worthwhile things, such as NASA, and other hitech science and engineering programs. Things that give the public a great return on their money. We just need to go and cut down on all the waste, and excess we have in the system.

I do not think anyone is advocating otherwise, I have been saying similiar things the entire thread. Only the most die hard conservative retard would say slash spending without raising taxes.

Which companies have built towns, without any assistance from the state?

The people who physically built these towns, where were they educated? How did they physically get from where they lived, to the place where they were working?

Every single rich person of today, is making use of the infrastructure that the millions of tax payers before them paid for.

What are you blabbering on about? The rich paid their dues their entire life to help build the system. Do you think they did not pay any taxes at all before becoming small business owners or CEO's?

jesus man stop posting.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Which companies have built towns, without any assistance from the state?

The people who physically built these towns, where were they educated? How did they physically get from where they lived, to the place where they were working?

Every single rich person of today, is making use of the infrastructure that the millions of tax payers before them paid for.

Given that you are not from the US, I am providing you with the benefit of having little knowledge of US History
wiki Link - company Town

also, those that are rich have paid what was considered to be their share.

It is the bleeding hearts that want more.

Yet how many of those bleeding hearts open up their wallets voluntarily.

Just like one should do to a young child that claims that needs something - show that you are mature enough to deserve it; then we will discuss it. Do not coming in here demanding that because someone else has a nice thing; you should have it also.

At this point the government not the "helpless handouts" have shown such.

 

[Veliko]

What are you blabbering on about? The rich paid their dues their entire life to help build the system. Do you think they did not pay any taxes at all before becoming small business owners or CEO's?

It is physically impossible for someone to help build a system, that existed before they were even born.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It is physically impossible for someone to help build a system, that existed before they were even born.

so then why should they have to contribute more than their share.

If it took 1000 people to build the system; then the share begin "paid"/utilized should be 1000. Not 2000.

 

[michal1980]

Which companies have built towns, without any assistance from the state?

The people who physically built these towns, where were they educated? How did they physically get from where they lived, to the place where they were working?

Every single rich person of today, is making use of the infrastructure that the millions of tax payers before them paid for.

Infrastructure that the rich paid the largest chunk for.

 

[Veliko]

Given that you are not from the US, I am providing you with the benefit of having little knowledge of US History
wiki Link - company Town

Well, it seems that those towns are now dead and buried, so I don't see how they are relevant today.

also, those that are rich have paid what was considered to be their share.

It is the bleeding hearts that want more.

Yet how many of those bleeding hearts open up their wallets voluntarily.

Just like one should do to a young child that claims that needs something - show that you are mature enough to deserve it; then we will discuss it. Do not coming in here demanding that because someone else has a nice thing; you should have it also.

No, the rich have not paid their share at all, because they owe their entire fortunes to the work that was done by the state in the first place.

At what age has a child 'paid back' their parents? The answer is 'never'.

 

[Veliko]

Infrastructure that the rich paid the largest chunk for.

Which is only right, given that they are the ones who benefit the most from it's existence.

 

[Veliko]

so then why should they have to contribute more than their share.

If it took 1000 people to build the system; then the share begin "paid"/utilized should be 1000. Not 2000.

Only if you want the world's population capped at four.

 

[nextJin]

Well, it seems that those towns are now dead and buried, so I don't see how they are relevant today.



No, the rich have not paid their share at all, because they owe their entire fortunes to the work that was done by the state in the first place.

At what age has a child 'paid back' their parents? The answer is 'never'.

Yes they did lol. The moment they came into the workforce they started paying the same taxes as everyone else.

They paid taxes then, they pay higher taxes now.

 

[Veliko]

Yes they did lol. The moment they came into the workforce they started paying the same taxes as everyone else.

They paid taxes then, they pay higher taxes now.

They dodge their taxes, and horde the proceeds.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They dodge their taxes, and horde the proceeds.

When you take everything from the rich; then you can start on the middle class;

Hand over everything to the poor - they aer the ones suffering and not having to work.

You are trying to do exactly what you are railing about. :thumbsdown:

People want what the other has without having to work for it.

Equality does not work; drive everything to the lowest common denominator and everyone plays in the mud.

 

[MovingTarget]

Jobs are created by the demand for a product.

The demand evaporated.

The is not the fallout of the rich.

If you guys are willing to work for nothing so be it.
Others are not.

A business should not have to run at a loss. It is better to close it down than bleed out capital.

Yes, demand DID evaporate. It had been evaporating for quite some time due to declining/stagnant wages. If consumers and industry have declining demand, then it is up to the public sector to pick up the slack. How do you pay for it? Taxes. Focusing tax hikes at the bottom will only further reduce consumer demand. Focusing them at the top is far more prudent.

Also, nowhere did I advocate that businesses must operate at a loss. Profits are currently through the roof. Those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder are doing better than ever, even to the point of hoarding wealth. So there is plenty of room for businesses to pay their employees more and/or for the rich pay more taxes overall. Businesses still made a profit and top earners were still raking in the bucks when we had a higher top marginal rate and higher adjusted minimum wage. We aren't asking for the moon here, only a return to the rates of the Clinton or Reagan years.