I awakended long ago and discovered that Bush is spending my money slaughtering people. I agree with you. I'd like him to stop spending my money that way and let me control it.
I awakended long ago and discovered that Bush is spending my money slaughtering people. I agree with you. I'd like him to stop spending my money that way and let me control it.
My guess is that an editorial is an editorial, regardless of where it happens to appear. That's not really the issue though. Now, I made some points about the tax cuts that you didn't address. Let me make it easy by posing this question:
Do you think the Bush tax cuts amounted to a straight x% across the board (regardless of income bracket)?
Follow-up question: Do you think there are elements of the various Bush tax cuts that could benefit investors and the wealthy specifically?
No, and they shouldn't have been. Let me tell you why. As it is now -we have a progressive income tax structure. Even if the tax-cuts were the same percentage for each bracket the "rich" would still have gotten a bigger cut - thus the whining would not have been averted. Ofcourse averting the whining has nothing to do with policy(for principled leaders) it has to do with bringing our tax structure back towards a level field. As it sits now - the "rich" are paying for the lion's share of the US spending while those who pay less are using more of the "services" provided. There is still an inbalance but it's atleast closer at this point.
Sure, having wealth period benefits investors and wealthy folks because when an opportunity presents itself they might be in a position to capitalize on it where us poor folk may not have the monetary requirements to partake in the opportunity. And? Just because we can't doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to and attempts to stop it via taking more of their money equates to nothing more than class envy and social engineering.
CsG
Thanks for finally waking up(some of us have been awake for years but it's good to know people still come around..). Now why don't we start trimming back(read gutting) the Federal spending... You still with me...?
CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
So the box you and your's puts people in who are thinking maybe the rich getting richer while median income drops are envious?
Dude, you really don't understand it at all. Not surprising though.
Dude, you really don't understand it at all. Not surprising though.
No Dude, it's you who really don't understand it at all... but that's not surprising.
The people who whine about it and try to take more from the "rich" to make it "better" are engaging in class warfare. Class envy comes in when people whine about all the wealth the "rich" have and that they don't just give it away or pay tons in taxes. Using taxes to control the divide is nothing more than social engineering and class warfare. Why should some people pay more(rate) than others? because you "feel" they should? Why do you feel taking more from one than another is ok?
CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
"Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". " Heh - as if that isn't the basis of the socialist's "progressive" income tax structure. I'm stating that that sort of emotional "logic" shouldn't play a part in paying for the gov't to run. You know - the reason we pay taxes in the first place. We don't pay taxes just to feel better - you can give to charity or to people directly if you wanted to feel better.
So again, at what point does one become to powerful or make too much? It is just decided by your feelings? Is it a wealth figure? How do you decide when a person should have to pay more?
CsG
Everybody knows that money is the root of all evil and taxes are a way of making people who have it less evil. Jesus said 'render unto Caesar' and as everybody knows also, the way you render the fat is to boil them. Taxes make the rich boil. They aren't rich cause they like giving money away. No pain, no gain.
Paying taxes is fine - however you taking more from some just because of your feelings is stealing. rendering to ceasar isn't a license to steal.
Yeah, if money makes people evil - what makes you think it won't make those in gov't evil
I mean there are plenty of people in the gov't that seem to want to take take take and then spend on their little pet project or the "ill" of the day. Does your little fix justify the actions taken to supposedly fix it? CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
"Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". " Heh - as if that isn't the basis of the socialist's "progressive" income tax structure. I'm stating that that sort of emotional "logic" shouldn't play a part in paying for the gov't to run. You know - the reason we pay taxes in the first place. We don't pay taxes just to feel better - you can give to charity or to people directly if you wanted to feel better.
So again, at what point does one become to powerful or make too much? It is just decided by your feelings? Is it a wealth figure? How do you decide when a person should have to pay more?
CsG
Your question is as irrelevant to me as those less fortunate are to you.
You didn't read my last post. I didnt say they couldnt make more. I said they should expect to pay taxes.
Now I have answered your question. How many would have to starve before you would have higher taxes on the wealthy?
How many would you let die?
Let's not get emotional. Just give a number.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
"Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". " Heh - as if that isn't the basis of the socialist's "progressive" income tax structure. I'm stating that that sort of emotional "logic" shouldn't play a part in paying for the gov't to run. You know - the reason we pay taxes in the first place. We don't pay taxes just to feel better - you can give to charity or to people directly if you wanted to feel better.
So again, at what point does one become to powerful or make too much? It is just decided by your feelings? Is it a wealth figure? How do you decide when a person should have to pay more?
CsG
Your question is as irrelevant to me as those less fortunate are to you.
You didn't read my last post. I didnt say they couldnt make more. I said they should expect to pay taxes.
Now I have answered your question. How many would have to starve before you would have higher taxes on the wealthy?
How many would you let die?
Let's not get emotional. Just give a number.
You've already gotten emotional. Your question is emotionally loaded and irrelevant to why we pay taxes. We pay taxes so the gov't can function.
*****
"What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves..." - you.
So at what point do people reach that? Who decides? You? How do you solve that? Taxes? Wouldn't that be using taxes to socially engineer society? Do you think taxes should be used for social engineering?
CsG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
"Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". " Heh - as if that isn't the basis of the socialist's "progressive" income tax structure. I'm stating that that sort of emotional "logic" shouldn't play a part in paying for the gov't to run. You know - the reason we pay taxes in the first place. We don't pay taxes just to feel better - you can give to charity or to people directly if you wanted to feel better.
So again, at what point does one become to powerful or make too much? It is just decided by your feelings? Is it a wealth figure? How do you decide when a person should have to pay more?
CsG
Your question is as irrelevant to me as those less fortunate are to you.
You didn't read my last post. I didnt say they couldnt make more. I said they should expect to pay taxes.
Now I have answered your question. How many would have to starve before you would have higher taxes on the wealthy?
How many would you let die?
Let's not get emotional. Just give a number.
You've already gotten emotional. Your question is emotionally loaded and irrelevant to why we pay taxes. We pay taxes so the gov't can function.
*****
"What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves..." - you.
So at what point do people reach that? Who decides? You? How do you solve that? Taxes? Wouldn't that be using taxes to socially engineer society? Do you think taxes should be used for social engineering?
CsG
Unlike you I realize we are emotional beings and I am not ashamed to be a compassionate human. If you think that makes me illogical, I really don't care about that either.
I feel for the less well off, and you for the wealthy. Your "logic" is not. Logically the rich and poor are irrelevant. They have little to do with you or I. Taxation on the wealthy means nothing to you, unless you get emotional.
I suppose it must be nice to be immune to the suffering of others. That you judge not by need, but by the weight of the wallet, more being "better".
If one looks at the threads you make, a large portion are in defense of people who do not need your help, and have no desire to know you or me, and that is the way it is.
It irks you that someone who makes a lot pays a lot. Don't tell me about emotion. You have plenty.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Since I don't want "their" money, how am I envious?
You don't want to take more from the "rich" than others?
CsG
What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves while the average person makes less, the very ones who work under them. Using power and position is indeed class warfare, and the rich win.
Do "I" want their money? I have no desire to touch it for myself. Higher taxes on them to compensate? Hell I AM paying more than the poor and I have no problem with it. I don't want to live in South America, so me and most of the rich I know (whom I am not one of) don't mind paying more. Generally it seems that those who are not wealthy are the ones who complain in their behalf. My main concern now is getting my kids playset together, not worrying that someone pays less in tax than me.
So at what point should a person not be able to use their wealth to create more wealth for themself?
CsG
First I didn't say they couldnt make more, and I didn't say that I have a problem with them using their wealth. They are free to make more, and expect to pay tax on that too.
I do have problems when boards rubberstamp bonus requests because they can. I didn't like when Coke executives rewrote their compensation packages to make sure they got them even though they didn't earn them as defined by their own standard just because they could.
Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". Fair isn't when a soldier has to put a bullet in the brain of a 6 year old who is booby trapped. Fair isn't when a good man gets killed by a drunk. No, this isn't a fair world, but it can be made better for many.
If the wealthy have to pay more in tax, they lose what? Their home? Car? No, none of that. No material threat. Oh maybe some get pissed off, but the Riviera awaits anyway.
What happens when people of lesser income find they are indeed getting less as the majority of Americans are? Maybe that house payment isn't something they can make. Maybe health care eats up their income so they can't send their kids to college. They are certainly prone to hardship more so than GE execs are.
They are the ones who have problems.
So if there are taxes on the rich so that the rich and the not rich can go to college, so be it.
If they pay more so those who are not the "elite" can have a roof over their head, so be it. The rich will still have theirs too. Am I arguing for people who won't work? Nope, but not everyone will be well off enough to provide their children with a good education or a decent (not lavish) place to live.
If a hundred who try are helped, and someone has to help pay, so be it. I know I do. Maybe it isn't envy on the part of the poor, but greed on the part of some others.
"Your basic mistake is you argue for "fairness". " Heh - as if that isn't the basis of the socialist's "progressive" income tax structure. I'm stating that that sort of emotional "logic" shouldn't play a part in paying for the gov't to run. You know - the reason we pay taxes in the first place. We don't pay taxes just to feel better - you can give to charity or to people directly if you wanted to feel better.
So again, at what point does one become to powerful or make too much? It is just decided by your feelings? Is it a wealth figure? How do you decide when a person should have to pay more?
CsG
Your question is as irrelevant to me as those less fortunate are to you.
You didn't read my last post. I didnt say they couldnt make more. I said they should expect to pay taxes.
Now I have answered your question. How many would have to starve before you would have higher taxes on the wealthy?
How many would you let die?
Let's not get emotional. Just give a number.
You've already gotten emotional. Your question is emotionally loaded and irrelevant to why we pay taxes. We pay taxes so the gov't can function.
*****
"What I don't want is the rich using their position of power to make more for themselves..." - you.
So at what point do people reach that? Who decides? You? How do you solve that? Taxes? Wouldn't that be using taxes to socially engineer society? Do you think taxes should be used for social engineering?
CsG
Unlike you I realize we are emotional beings and I am not ashamed to be a compassionate human. If you think that makes me illogical, I really don't care about that either.
I feel for the less well off, and you for the wealthy. Your "logic" is not. Logically the rich and poor are irrelevant. They have little to do with you or I. Taxation on the wealthy means nothing to you, unless you get emotional.
I suppose it must be nice to be immune to the suffering of others. That you judge not by need, but by the weight of the wallet, more being "better".
If one looks at the threads you make, a large portion are in defense of people who do not need your help, and have no desire to know you or me, and that is the way it is.
It irks you that someone who makes a lot pays a lot. Don't tell me about emotion. You have plenty.
Nice try but your dodging, obfuscation, and emotional rhetoric doesn't fly.
Taxes aren't an emotion. They are funds to run the gov't. By you and other introducing emotion into it - it has become social engineering based on someone's "feelings".
***
CsG
Well, if the cut were the same percentage across the board, the rich would only receive the same proportionate savings as someone who was in a lower tax bracket. It is, in fact, the only way to ensure a fair tax cut that doesn't benefit one economic bracket over another.
Well, I personally wouldn't mind a flat tax. I'm not sure if that's what you're proposing or not. I guess you could at least argue that with the current progressive tax rate, as you make more and more income, you are generally able to shelter more of your income. I seriously doubt the wealthiest Americans are really paying a true 35%.
Well, I believe the point of this exercise was to show that Bush's tax cuts specifically benefit the wealthy moreso than the lower/middle class. Which it sounds like you're in agreement on. It's hard to tell, because quite often you seem to be making the argument that the Bush tax cuts are somehow very egalitarian and benefited all economic classes more or less equally.
Rightiswrong wrote:
"By the bottom end of the spectrum, I think that we can safely assume (and yes I know what happens when you do that....we all assumed Bush was a man of his word and look where that got us) that the bottom of the spectrum would consist of the lower, say, 35% of the bracket in the link provided by Bbond. Now, using that as a guideline, the bottom 35% got a total of 30.2% of the tax cuts. Once again, using math that the rest of the free world uses, that is not even half of the tax cuts let alone a "vast majority". If you would like to show us how you come up with the numbers that can prove that wrong, feel free. But, like all good teachers would tell you, you must show your work. At least where you are getting the figures."
Did you even read the article friend? Perhaps you missed this little snippet:
"Although the Times makes no mention of it in the text of its alleged article, and the subtitle over the graphics, ?The Wealthiest Benefit More From the Recent Tax Cuts,? is designed to foster the opposite impression, an attentive reader, willing to go to the trouble of doing some simple addition based on numbers supplied along with the graphics, is able to see that the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers in 2001 paid only 29.5 percent of all federal taxes, while the top 20 percent of taxpayers paid the remaining 70.5 percent of all federal taxes and that the top one-tenth of one percent of taxpayers paid 12 percent of all federal taxes."
So the bottom EIGHTY PERCENT of taxpayers paid only 29.5% of all income taxes...yet the bottom **35%**, got 1/3 of the tax cuts.
Tell me....How exactly is this NOT weighted toward the lower end?
People in the bottom brackets got a much larger percentage reduction than those at the top, despite what you want to believe.
Personally, I like my new 10% bracket.
"By the bottom end of the spectrum, I think that we can safely assume (and yes I know what happens when you do that....we all assumed Bush was a man of his word and look where that got us) that the bottom of the spectrum would consist of the lower, say, 35% of the bracket in the link provided by Bbond. Now, using that as a guideline, the bottom 35% got a total of 30.2% of the tax cuts. Once again, using math that the rest of the free world uses, that is not even half of the tax cuts let alone a "vast majority". If you would like to show us how you come up with the numbers that can prove that wrong, feel free. But, like all good teachers would tell you, you must show your work. At least where you are getting the figures."
Did you even read the article friend? Perhaps you missed this little snippet:
"Although the Times makes no mention of it in the text of its alleged article, and the subtitle over the graphics, ?The Wealthiest Benefit More From the Recent Tax Cuts,? is designed to foster the opposite impression, an attentive reader, willing to go to the trouble of doing some simple addition based on numbers supplied along with the graphics, is able to see that the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers in 2001 paid only 29.5 percent of all federal taxes, while the top 20 percent of taxpayers paid the remaining 70.5 percent of all federal taxes and that the top one-tenth of one percent of taxpayers paid 12 percent of all federal taxes."
So the bottom EIGHTY PERCENT of taxpayers paid only 29.5% of all income taxes...yet the bottom **35%**, got 1/3 of the tax cuts.
Tell me....How exactly is this NOT weighted toward the lower end?
People in the bottom brackets got a much larger percentage reduction than those at the top, despite what you want to believe.
Personally, I like my new 10% bracket.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Paying taxes is fine - however you taking more from some just because of your feelings is stealing. rendering to ceasar isn't a license to steal.
Yeah, if money makes people evil - what makes you think it won't make those in gov't evil
CsG
The government is us so we are just sharing the burden of evil with the rich. How much more selfless can we get?
First-off I don't live in the US. I'm going to offer several ways of looking at this. First-off the editorial seems to me to be moral-outrage not envy - if the OP doesn't include that possibility he is stupid. Quite frankly, if i was really envious and wanted to earn alot of money I wouldn't be a journalist. Many journalists tend to be primarily moralists or those with strong opinions/belief systems rather than having a money-focused nature.
On to some other points:
If I was in charge of a country I would try to make a system that was as fair as possible and as resilient to corruption and abuse as possible. Now onto some other points including what is fair...
1 - Income should be meritocratic - THAT is the definition of a FAIR system.
ie if you are intelligent/skilled/work hard/industrious (add to the economy) you should be rewarded. So question: are those in the top brackets necessarily harder worker than everyoen else? Sure, they are compared to the average no doubt but nevertheless, there will be a very large swathe of people who work harder and are more intelligent (have more to add to the economic and intellectual wealth of the country) yet they won't be rewarded as well. A fair system is a meritocratic. Is the economic system that? No. Do those tax breaks lean towards making the system more meritcratic. No (Of course, making a system meritocratic is a structural change not a tax change). What I'm saying is that once you have money it tends to foster more money with less effort ie investments. Question and not meaning to pick on individuals but to illustrate a point - does GW Bush deserve to be rich? Intellectually or work-wise not at all. Morally he doesn't even deserve to be better off.
In short, if you work hard and have the ability then you should be allowed to be rich.
2 - A country's economy is a system is collective ie everyone is linked together and without the 'poorer' the rich couldn't be rich. As such, the rich are dependent on the 'poorer' rather than being independent of them - or indeed them doing the 'poorer' a greater service (cite trick-down economics ideas which have shown to be false). While the rich often generate wealth for the rest of the economy it is with the collaboration and indeed off the work of the 'poorer'
What I'm suggesting is currently, taxes are directed independently. Surely, if you're aiming for the greater good where many people work hard and people are richer by using other people's work it makes sense to target those areas of wealth at the tops which is made by the work of the whole economic system at all levels. That means having a porgressive tax system like is seen in Europe. It still rewards those that work hard ie the more money you earn, the more you get (but proportionally this gets less).
3 - Why again do the rich need quite so much - rephrasing that, would they actually notice (ie change their lifestyle) if they received even 10% less? Maybe, they won't be able to buy themselves a new ferrari (etc random example but nevertheless salient and illustrative) every year. And? As for those with strong Christian leanings I'ms surprised they don't have more to say given the amount of which Jesus said on wealth. If you're obssessed with getting more money (ie greed), you can't be spirtually focused at least as a primary focus. Greed is also meant to be a sin right? (So is jealousy but this isn't about this but how to create a fairer system)
I don't have time to be detailed, thorough or eloquent, but some of the tripe I've read on here is astounding and show that clearly very little thought has gone into many of the posts made.
In short:
Is the US economic system unfair - Yes it is
Is it becoming more fairer - Quite the opposite, those who need less cuts receive more, while at the same time the economy is running in great deficit - that's bad economics
Can it be made fairer - Absolutely. Therefore, something should be done.
I think these were the points of the original post. However, regardless of the quote in the OP those should be the primary questions we should be asking ourselves.
----
To express my disagreement with some of the posters on here:
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one - but depending what has been ingested, you may see verbal diarrhoea
On to some other points:
If I was in charge of a country I would try to make a system that was as fair as possible and as resilient to corruption and abuse as possible. Now onto some other points including what is fair...
1 - Income should be meritocratic - THAT is the definition of a FAIR system.
ie if you are intelligent/skilled/work hard/industrious (add to the economy) you should be rewarded. So question: are those in the top brackets necessarily harder worker than everyoen else? Sure, they are compared to the average no doubt but nevertheless, there will be a very large swathe of people who work harder and are more intelligent (have more to add to the economic and intellectual wealth of the country) yet they won't be rewarded as well. A fair system is a meritocratic. Is the economic system that? No. Do those tax breaks lean towards making the system more meritcratic. No (Of course, making a system meritocratic is a structural change not a tax change). What I'm saying is that once you have money it tends to foster more money with less effort ie investments. Question and not meaning to pick on individuals but to illustrate a point - does GW Bush deserve to be rich? Intellectually or work-wise not at all. Morally he doesn't even deserve to be better off.
In short, if you work hard and have the ability then you should be allowed to be rich.
2 - A country's economy is a system is collective ie everyone is linked together and without the 'poorer' the rich couldn't be rich. As such, the rich are dependent on the 'poorer' rather than being independent of them - or indeed them doing the 'poorer' a greater service (cite trick-down economics ideas which have shown to be false). While the rich often generate wealth for the rest of the economy it is with the collaboration and indeed off the work of the 'poorer'
What I'm suggesting is currently, taxes are directed independently. Surely, if you're aiming for the greater good where many people work hard and people are richer by using other people's work it makes sense to target those areas of wealth at the tops which is made by the work of the whole economic system at all levels. That means having a porgressive tax system like is seen in Europe. It still rewards those that work hard ie the more money you earn, the more you get (but proportionally this gets less).
3 - Why again do the rich need quite so much - rephrasing that, would they actually notice (ie change their lifestyle) if they received even 10% less? Maybe, they won't be able to buy themselves a new ferrari (etc random example but nevertheless salient and illustrative) every year. And? As for those with strong Christian leanings I'ms surprised they don't have more to say given the amount of which Jesus said on wealth. If you're obssessed with getting more money (ie greed), you can't be spirtually focused at least as a primary focus. Greed is also meant to be a sin right? (So is jealousy but this isn't about this but how to create a fairer system)
I don't have time to be detailed, thorough or eloquent, but some of the tripe I've read on here is astounding and show that clearly very little thought has gone into many of the posts made.
In short:
Is the US economic system unfair - Yes it is
Is it becoming more fairer - Quite the opposite, those who need less cuts receive more, while at the same time the economy is running in great deficit - that's bad economics
Can it be made fairer - Absolutely. Therefore, something should be done.
I think these were the points of the original post. However, regardless of the quote in the OP those should be the primary questions we should be asking ourselves.
----
To express my disagreement with some of the posters on here:
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one - but depending what has been ingested, you may see verbal diarrhoea
If you actually look at the numbers and the way that they present them, they are being misleading. They are not taking into account the ratio of "taxes paid: income earned" and the actual number of people in that group. If they had, you would see a very different picture.
If you look at the first chart Here, you will see that the top one percent are only paying 16.12% of their AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) in taxes. The bottom 50% are paying 14.23%. The rich are not being prison raped like the AUTHOR OF THIS EDITORIAL is trying to depict. In fact, if you compare the average amount of return of the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% and the bottom 50%....you will see that the bottom are not getting anywhere near a 1/3 that the author or you claim when you factor in that there were 64,162,000 people sharing that pie compared to 1,283,000 sharing the pie that went to the wealthiest. You get a lot bigger piece when you pie is cut into fewer pieces...don't ya?
Good job though falling for the author's blatant attempt to lie with numbers in his apples to oranges comparison.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter