The solution is that the person making 10k a year should either live a lifestyle that is allowed by his salary or work on bettering himself or working another job....why would anyone ever assume that both live the same lifestyle. And why is it fair that the person who is more successful should have to pay a higher percentage? isn't that in fact a "punishment" for being successful?
There are several answers to this question. The following is what I think at least makes some sense. When you walk up to the cash register at a Wal-mart, how can the cashier tell for certain whether you are unemployed or whether you are a millionaire? Sure, the homeless man might be wearing clothes from Wal-mart and you might be clad in Armani, but there is no way of being completely sure. If he can't tell, what makes you think that someone standing in your state capitol can tell? Obviously, we could have ID cards or some other form of identifcation which told retailers the appropriate graduated tax rate for purchases, but that would create a mess of paperwork, invasions of privacy, and all sorts of other bureaucratic nightmares. It's simpler for tax agencies AND retailers to charge a percentage of the transaction instead of sorting out a mass of paperwork at both ends on how much tax is really owed to the state. ALSO, consumption patterns are wholly different from income, and may not be based on income alone. You can make 4 million a year yet only spend $50,000 and have no debt. Conversely, you can make $50,000 and spend $65,000. There's quite a difference here, and differences mean less operating money for the government - so the solution here is not to tax consumption but income.
Sorry if that made no sense.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Inching towards it. Yes, all I have to do in my lifetime is convince two others, who convinvce two others. Someday, yes.
I never said poor=lazy, but on the same note it seems people can acceptably make the association that rich=greedy. neither is generally true.Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Okay, you got me on my horrible math...actually, that's just pathetic, IMOA thousand apologies.
I've heard your sort of thinking over and over, and it still strikes me as incredibly Darwinistic. Taking a few isolated cases of individuals simply living off of a welfare state that hit the newspapers in this country, naysayers to high tax rates claim that they will simply be helping fund peoples' laziness, and that higher tax rates will accomplish nothing but waste money. The folly of this, however, is that they fail to provide any alternatives. It also assumes one thing: that people who are poor are inherently lazy, worthless, or somehow at the bottom because they 'deserve' it. Ironic when you find that coupled with poverty is poor education, poor afterschool or childcare programs, and that many 2-provider families are working multiple jobs combined in excess of 40 hours a week.
How, I ask you, how is it possible to even take financial risk and start a business when you are putting food on the table, working a large number of hours a week, and have very little time or money to spare, not to mention when you have a very poor education? Easy to take risk when you have $100,000 to play with. The result is a downward spiral where the people with the money to change these sorts of social problems refuse to give it up, demanding that the state find solutions (naturally, without overstretching their budgets). I find it hugely ironic that people are able to make these conclusions as if they have some sort of scientific or foolproof evidence backing their claims - we know that there will always be some outliers, but I think that the dozens of minority and formerly impoverished people working their way OUT of welfare shatters the apparent 'truths' of "welfare bums."
Im not saying I dont agree with unemployment or limited welfare, to help strugling families or laid off people TEMPORARILY. This doesnt require an unfair tax. Taxing the wealthier more is counterproductive. Rich people create jobs. Give a poor person some money and they will spend it, and its gone. Give a rich person the same percentage of thier income, and they have enough for a full time position in thier company, thats one more job, one less person on a govt program, better all around.
You are assuming that finding another job or 'working to better oneself' is possible with the degree to which public education has deteriorated, or that living a lifestyle based on salary is even possible in many urban areas, where rent prices have skyrocketed, costs of living have risen regardless of income in areas such as utilities, food, and other necessities, and inflation has risen but wages have not.
Why is it fair that the wealthy pay more than those who are not as wealthy? Simply because they have the means to do so - unless you're telling me that Bill Gates is going to lose sleep over being taxed a couple dozen million dollars more vs. Joe Sixpack, who needs to choose between paying his rent or paying for his kids' childcare for the next month. There IS a difference. In regards to whether or not it is 'punishment,' that is a laughable equivocation which simply does not apply. Taxation is not the state telling you that being successful is wrong, or in some way illegal. That would be self-contradictory, and would undoubtedly be the demise of our economy, our way of life, and many others. Taxation in this context is merely the state taking more from your paycheck because you can afford to do so, and the guy in the projects can't.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
The idea that America is becoming communist is utterly laughable, the simple fact that someone is making that assumption shows he lacks understanding to what communism truly is. All the article shows is that any crackpot can get his stuff published on the internet.
but that would imply that the Govt decides WHO can "afford to do so"
Do you really want the government deciding who has enough money and who doesnt have enough?
If the government makes more money off of rich people, then the government makes more money the more rich people there are. Its like creating an incentive for the government to promote more rich people. Because one millionaire is worth 45 middle class workers under our current taxation system, wouldnt the government want more rich people?
If there were a flat tax, the government would be blind to income based classes.
So you think that giving tax breaks to the wealthy will create more jobs? That's one way of looking at it, if you assume that a.) money lost from tax breaks will be directly reinvested into the sector of the economy which CREATES jobs and will not be used for some other purpose, b.) those jobs and the money used to create those jobs will remain in the local/national economy, or c.) that the money is spent on creating jobs at all. That's an awful lot of assumption, and seems to be as idealistic as pure communism.
So basically the people who earn more should have to support those who do not? isn't that socialism? honestly if the person in question cannot do better then isn't that their problem that their parents did not provide for them a basic or even managable education? Honestly if they cannot afford to live/work in an urban area then so what?
While the well to do might not lose sleep over being taxed heavier is it fair to do so? personally I say no as they ARE directly being punished for being successful in the form of more of their money going away into services they will most likely never use or take advantage of and will only benefit the lazy or not as successful.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I make less than 10G a year, and I volunteer at a soup kitchen, help with habitat for humanity, and various meals on wheels type programs. So I'm lazy, yeah gotcha there, man you people just don't care about anything but yourselves. On top of all that I am an independant business owner. I just choose that taking care of others is more important than making millions.
merely saying that your view is representiative of many others who will be glad to label themselves with the C.C. badge.
sorry I didn't mean to project any human virtues on you.
oh thats right, when rich people spend money it just dissapears into thin air right? no one built those cars they buy, no one cooks those meals in thier fancy resturants, no one built that big mansion, no one made those clothes, installed that pool, paved thier driveway, built that TV, computer, stereo.
I think the problem here is that you are concentrating on the fringes and borders that differentiate the working class from the middle class, the middle class from the upper class, etc. rather than the actual core of each group. You're telling me that you don't want the government deciding whether or not Mr. X making 45,000 a year in Manhattan falls into the working class or the middle class, or some sort of situation like that. THAT, however, is not the issue. The point is that Bill Gates has more than enough, a single mother working for a non-profit does not necessarily have as much.
Under your flat tax plan the single mother would pay the same PERCENTAGE of her salary as Bill, which seems fair but places an undue burden on the single mother and others like her, who may or may not have to alter her lifestyle to accomodate the increased tax amount, whereas Bill Gates will likely not.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Since most people aren't rich the plight of the Rich having to pay more taxes falls mostly on deaf ears. The common perception is that they usually don't pay their full share anyway as they have tax accountantsand Lawyers at their beckon call to find loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes.
THe best was to make it equitable is to have a flat tax and no deductions what so ever.
THe best was to make it equitable is to have a flat tax and no deductions what so ever.
And that is your choice Judas, but to punish others based on a life decision you have made for yourself simply is not fair.
why shouldn't the well to do have to pay more in taxes to support the military, police dept. and fire depts, and the prisons? after all, they have more and more valuable property, so they arguably benefit the most from these services. why shouldn't they have to pay more taxes for the roads? they often have more cars and drive them.... why should poor people who only walk or bike have to foot the bill equally to fund the highways?
what about the universities? usually only the children of the middle class and rich get to go. so should the poor have to pay equally for these as well?
so the rich shouldn't have to pay anything to keep their fellow citizens from starving to death, but the poor should have to pay so that the rich's property can be protected and they can get to vacation spots with greater convenience? and send their kids to get trained to get rich? that's not fair in my opinion. but who knows what some of you guys are going to dream up.
Human virtues? so expecting a nanny state when one cannot provide for themselves is a "human virtue" sorry but if I were not doing well I would not expect anyone to pick up my slack.
The TV's, clothing, stereo, and computers? Built overseas, ironically enough, the profits pocketed by American corporations - working classes in America won't see a cent of that money. The vast majority of money spent on the goods & services you mentioned will go directly BACK to where it came from - the people who can afford lifestyles of the "rich and famous." The person who needs the job and the money from the job will get their cut, but it will be a miniscule amount. The result is that the vast amount of money continues circulates but does not circulate where it is most needed, down below. What taxation does is intercept part of this flow and redirect it to the bottom.
Once again...taxation != punishment! I have no idea where you got this sort of bizzare equivocation, but think about it!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter