Does anyone buy the Democratic demagoguery?

[Stunt]

SO what if 50% of americans own stock...i mentioned few stock options...

to quote "the corperation"
over half of the value of american companies is owned by less than 1% of the population...
those are the people bush is tending to with the dividend tax cuts.

 

[Stunt]

Tax cuts

"the new and improved 2003 rates:"
27% rate goes to 25%
30% rate goes to 28%
35% rate goes to 33%
38.6% rate goes to 35%
The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged

so NO tax cuts for the poor...yeah that makes sense...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
SO what if 50% of americans own stock...i mentioned few stock options...

to quote "the corperation"
over half of the value of american companies is owned by less than 1% of the population...
those are the people bush is tending to with the dividend tax cuts.

While the rich down own a large share of the market, it is not 1% owning 50%.

And that dividend tax break is going to allow bill gates to give billions more to his nonprofit. And that is bad right?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
SO what if 50% of americans own stock...i mentioned few stock options...

to quote "the corperation"
over half of the value of american companies is owned by less than 1% of the population...
those are the people bush is tending to with the dividend tax cuts.

While the rich down own a large share of the market, it is not 1% owning 50%.

And that dividend tax break is going to allow bill gates to give billions more to his nonprofit. And that is bad right?

That's what they said...unless you can prove to me otherwise, i'll stick with this information...
After seeing how you view things, im not about to take your word for it 😉

 

[Stunt]

I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

15% don't have health INSURANCE. That doesn't mean they don't get health treatment.

So, how much should the rich be taxed? It's a simple question.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

Odd, if my comment was an attack so was yours. I dont agree with Canadian system of taxation. Nor do I agree that Canadas "universal healthcare" is better.

Both systems have their advantage and disadvantages. But this is a debate for a different thread.
And yes, this country does work to improve itself as well.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

15% don't have health INSURANCE. That doesn't mean they don't get health treatment.

So, how much should the rich be taxed? It's a simple question.

no health insurance....same thing!...you think the porrest in your country can afford heath care without insurance...oh my...you are a spoiled little one aren't you...go hang with some poorer people and see what it is like...you sir live in a bubble. Prolly some prissy suburb with huge houses, a good highschool and company health and dental plans...Be more considerate of your fellow man...the ones that serve your wants and needs.

How much?...well enough to balance your books at least!...then maybe more at the rich and middle to help fund education and health so you guys can get to the levels you should be at, for an economic superpower...your demographic information is sad to say the least...look at the numbers...do they look fair to you...take your time...you have your whole life to figure this out...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We are way off topic folks. Here's the original question:

"Soaking the rich" might feel good to most Libs, but is confiscating money from the "rich" really going to solve our nations fiscal problems?

If your question made sense maybe I could answer it.

Okay, I'll simplify it for you:

What economic benefit is dervived from having a higher tax rate for the "rich".

I'll arbitrarily define "rich" as those making over $200,000/yr (feel free to push back), which according to the latest census data constitutes 2.4% of households in the US.

I gotta to ask, who is proposing a higher tax rate for the rich?

Last time I check, no one is talking about a tax increase. The only debate here is if we should give the money to the rich with the tax cut package that favors the rich. I mean America is fighting a 200 billion war and just recovered from a recession. Is giving the money to the rich the solution?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

Odd, if my comment was an attack so was yours. I dont agree with Canadian system of taxation. Nor do I agree that Canadas "universal healthcare" is better.

Both systems have their advantage and disadvantages. But this is a debate for a different thread.
And yes, this country does work to improve itself as well.

improve it for the rich...look at the tax breaks income wise...look at the tax breaks for the stock holders....still waiting for your information trumping mine...

progressive is creating an environment where nobody is left behind...

the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor and get poorer...very few people change class these days in your country...so much for the american dream.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

15% don't have health INSURANCE. That doesn't mean they don't get health treatment.

So, how much should the rich be taxed? It's a simple question.

no health insurance....same thing!...you think the porrest in your country can afford heath care without insurance...oh my...you are a spoiled little one aren't you...go hang with some poorer people and see what it is like...you sir live in a bubble. Prolly some prissy suburb with huge houses, a good highschool and company health and dental plans...Be more considerate of your fellow man...the ones that serve your wants and needs.

Both situations are not perfect. You talk about the poorest not being able to afford health care. Someone else can talk about how EVERYONE can't even get access to health care in Canada in an adequate time. Both are cruel.

Plus, health care and health insurance are not the same thing. You should take that flag off your head.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

Odd, if my comment was an attack so was yours. I dont agree with Canadian system of taxation. Nor do I agree that Canadas "universal healthcare" is better.

Both systems have their advantage and disadvantages. But this is a debate for a different thread.
And yes, this country does work to improve itself as well.

improve it for the rich...look at the tax breaks income wise...look at the tax breaks for the stock holders....still waiting for your information trumping mine...

progressive is creating an environment where nobody is left behind...

the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor and get poorer...very few people change class these days in your country...so much for the american dream.

And I would have disagree with everything you said. I know lots of self made people. The american dream is alive and well, record homeownership is good proof of that.
The simple fact is, the rich pay more in taxes and get more back when there is a tax cut. If you are not paying taxes you are not going to get a tax break.

Someone has given you a very incorrect vision of this country.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
very few people change class these days in your country...so much for the american dream.

Is there any proof of this in comparison to other countries?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
very few people change class these days in your country...so much for the american dream.

Is there any proof of this in comparison to other countries?

He does not even have proof of that for this country.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

15% don't have health INSURANCE. That doesn't mean they don't get health treatment.

So, how much should the rich be taxed? It's a simple question.

It's actually a 'loaded question' and not simple at all:

According to a theory based on equity, the rich should be taxed according to the benefit they obtain by living in a taxed society. Taken to the extreme, you would have something close to communism; all income above what could be earned in a sustenance society with barter-exchange would remit to the government and be either spent or redistributed. Obviously this would be stupid as it would provide absolutely no motivation to produce beyond the bare sustenance level - essentially the ultimate 'free-rider problem'. Of course this assumes no real differences in the earning potential of different people (preposterous) or alternatively no entitlement to additional earnings for those capable and/or willing of working for these additional earnings (not preposterous, but certainly opposed to the founding principles of America and the rest of the western world). So we can rule out this option.

Since an economy without protections for trade, a medium of exchange, laws governing exchange, roads, etc. cannot support people at a very high level of income, it is hard to argue that the rich are left behind by some level of progressive taxation; they are simply better off in a country where more is collected in taxes than can be managed by taxing everyone equally. This is not an argument from equity; it's a simple fact that an economy cannot grow to the state that exists in the western world, by any forseeable means other than investment in public goods. So while it is an equitable option to both give everyone nothing, and take nothing, it would be foolhardy. Hunting and gathering anyone?

So we're left with the obvious 'best case' of progressive taxation, but no real measure for how steep the slope should be, or what the absolute level should be. Economics cannot answer this question. It can show plenty of quantitative demonstrations of what the ideal answer might look like, but in the end all we have is natural experimentation; when marginal tax rates in the 90% range in Britain worked out badly, that was a lesson that this was clearly stifling production.

In the US, the deficit has two causes - one is the cost of Iraq, the other the decreased revenue as a result of tax cuts. Accepting for the sake of argument that Iraq was necessary (it certainly is necessary now, that it has begun, so there's no point analysing as if it hadn't happened), this leaves one way to reduce the deficit; restore taxation to previous leves.

I doubt there is a long-run 'correct' tax level given the constant shifts in western economies. Even here in Canada, we've managed to have some modest tax cuts as our federal deficits, and to some extent our debt have come under control. Does this mean the tax level is perfect now? No. Does it mean it was too high before? No. It means the situation has changed, and our government is taking its best guess, hopefully with the well-being of the entire country in mind.

Cutting taxes to the point of creating such massive deficits as the US faces today is likely not the best idea. It's not the same as when a corporation finances itself through debt - you aren't borrowing to invest in the future, you're consuming future wealth today.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We are way off topic folks. Here's the original question:

"Soaking the rich" might feel good to most Libs, but is confiscating money from the "rich" really going to solve our nations fiscal problems?

If your question made sense maybe I could answer it.

Okay, I'll simplify it for you:

What economic benefit is dervived from having a higher tax rate for the "rich".

I'll arbitrarily define "rich" as those making over $200,000/yr (feel free to push back), which according to the latest census data constitutes 2.4% of households in the US.

I gotta to ask, who is proposing a higher tax rate for the rich?

Last time I check, no one is talking about a tax increase. The only debate here is if we should give the money to the rich with the tax cut package that favors the rich. I mean America is fighting a 200 billion war and just recovered from a recession. Is giving the money to the rich the solution?

How do you define "rich"?

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We are way off topic folks. Here's the original question:

"Soaking the rich" might feel good to most Libs, but is confiscating money from the "rich" really going to solve our nations fiscal problems?

If your question made sense maybe I could answer it.

Okay, I'll simplify it for you:

What economic benefit is dervived from having a higher tax rate for the "rich".

I'll arbitrarily define "rich" as those making over $200,000/yr (feel free to push back), which according to the latest census data constitutes 2.4% of households in the US.

The benefit is the government collects more revenue without placing too high a burden on poor people. I am curious what flat tax rate would be required to pay for all the government spending this year?

Keep in mind I am someone who has always agreed with the idea of lowering taxes, I just think spending cuts should proceed them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We are way off topic folks. Here's the original question:

"Soaking the rich" might feel good to most Libs, but is confiscating money from the "rich" really going to solve our nations fiscal problems?

If your question made sense maybe I could answer it.

Okay, I'll simplify it for you:

What economic benefit is dervived from having a higher tax rate for the "rich".

I'll arbitrarily define "rich" as those making over $200,000/yr (feel free to push back), which according to the latest census data constitutes 2.4% of households in the US.

The benefit is the government collects more revenue without placing too high a burden on poor people. I am curious what flat tax rate would be required to pay for all the government spending this year?

Keep in mind I am someone who has always agreed with the idea of lowering taxes, I just think spending cuts should proceed them.

It would take around a 20% flat tax. But if everyone was paying a 20% flat tax, there would extreme howling to lower goverment spending.

 

[Stunt]

"Someone else can talk about how EVERYONE can't even get access to health care in Canada in an adequate time. Both are cruel."
our system is prioritized...longest waits are for people who are less critical...emergency and cancer treatments are right away. I had appendix out within 3 hours of walking in the door...no notification. Want to get some data to back your assumption that wait times are longer here...and what treatment is longer...should be some interesting information for you to present.

"record homeownership"
ah yes...buying stuff on borrowed money...again...economy based on debt and loans...not an accurate indicator of the poor's financial situation in the US.

"the rich pay more in taxes and get more back when there is a tax cut."
but if you are poor you get no tax break?...i can accept tax cuts...but only if they are even accross the board. Not changing the bottom two tax brackets is just ignorance.

"Someone has given you a very incorrect vision of this country. "
Oh so the american dream doesnt exist...

"Is there any proof of this in comparison to other countries? "
Someone posted earlier...can't find at the moment...maybe someone can post for me...(social class elasticity was the name of the chart or site...)

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

Not that I'm doubting this, but your link was brought up by someone else and argued about here before. Do you have any other link besides this one with more in depth data without being on that type of website?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
very few people change class these days in your country...so much for the american dream.

Is there any proof of this in comparison to other countries?

He does not even have proof of that for this country.

Didn't someone post a report on Economic Freedom some days ago? Is that the same thing? I didn't read it, but the US was ranked 3 behind Singapore & Hong Kong. I'd think that if Singapore is listed there, maybe it's related since they became a first-world country overnight.

 

[Stunt]

yeah...you need tax brackets or the poor cannot live...you have poverty levels even higher than they are now...

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is great that gates will give more to non-profit...
but maybe there'd be less poor people if the tax cuts were aimed at the poor instead of assuming that the rich will be so nice to in effect give the poor a tax break...

at least if the gov't does the tax beak, you know the poor will get the money they need...
Poverty 12.1% live in poverty in the US.

Healthcare 15% without health coverage

a testament of your tax system.

your logic on taxation is messed...

I could say the same about the tax system up north.

Oh so instead of responding to my comments, you are going to attack my country...haha!

Well...it is definately different.
Taxes - can't find anything more recent, but our taxes haven't changed much, and your taxes have gone down minimally for low income earners...so one can assume that the report's conclusion that people making under $60,000 US are charged less tax in canada.

Then bring into the equation 8% poverty rate (according to the frasier institute) and 100% of people have access to heathcare...you have a long way to go to say it is the same here.

But i will say that our country has a way to go as well...our country isn't perfect, but we are trying to improve it, you should try the same...instead of giving tax breaks to the rich...

again your taxation theories are messed.

Not that I'm doubting this, but your link was brought up by someone else and argued about here before. Do you have any other link besides this one with more in depth data without being on that type of website?

On taxation?