Income Gap Of Poor, Rich, Widens

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Cad, your arguments aren't even worth the time to answer them. You are so brainwashed that I give up on talking to you about this. It's quite simple, I'm right and your wrong, but you just don't want to see it.

Luckily for the American people, we have elections every so often so we can get rid of pinheads like Bush. Once he gets ousted you will have plenty of time to reflect and wonder exactly why. Maybe then you will aquire the insight into human nature that you seem to be lacking at this point. Or not, I guess I have other things to worry about.

I just think it's a shame that the Republican Party has deteriorated to what it now represents. I used to be a Republican and proud of it, but now I'm ashamed to admit having ever been one. It isn't me that changed either, it was the Party that changed. It just got greedy and corrupt until I could no longer stand it.

I sure wish we had a better choice then Kerry, but he will have to do because everything that Bush has done so far is obviously slanted to favor the rich and powerful. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.

Here's a clue for you - my ideology doesn't change with the wind, nor does it change with elections...something you might want to look into...

That's fine if you want to claim I'm brainwashed - it does nothing for your argument(or lack there of) and just goes to show you really didn't have any substance to respond with. Keep on believing you are right though...:roll:

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

New government data also shows that President Bush's tax cuts have shifted the overall tax burden to the middle class from the wealthiest Americans.

Yes.

This comes as no surprise.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's review the conversation, CkG. First, you said this, which has its own emotional triggers, as does the entire subject-

Sure the small operation may only have 40-80 or a small section but my relatives and some others I know that are in SD have pretty good sized herds and farmland. Their operation would be in trouble if something happened and there was a transfer. Ofcourse they already took care of that but it still stands that there would be big finacial trouble if they got hit with that tax.

And then slightly down the page, engage in this accusation against tss4-

But no, your attempt failed the logic without emotion test. You used "struggle" to pay bills and other emotional triggers in your attempt to contrast and excuse the act of taking a bigger portion of each person's dollar. You based it on your need for emotional gratification - knowing that they may not have to "struggle" as much. This argument may seem "cold" and "uncaring" to some but money is numbers - numbers don't change with your feelings.

Both "big financial trouble" and "struggle" convey emotional content, and express some sort of personal value judgement. Both arguments express what you refer to as a "need for emotional gratification". All argument, beyond pure mathematics, carries some emotional content...

And we move on to this-

You don't seem to understand the difference in "utility". Again, one is based on the perceived feelings of an individual which aren't measurable and the other in a flat tax or consumption tax you'd be able to measure the utility. His argument using utility has been tried but doesn't work because the utility in his scenario can't be quantified.

He speaks, of course, to the concept of utility to the taxpayer, and such quantifications are made all the time- the poverty level is such a quantification. Carrying your argument to the extreme would indicate that the last $30K earned by a guy making that $134M/yr has the same utility to him as the only $30K earned by somebody else, which is patently absurd.

Refusal, as usual, to recognize these aspects of the discourse at hand will in no way enhance your credibility...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Luckily for the American people, we have elections every so often so we can get rid of pinheads like Bush. Once he gets ousted you will have plenty of time to reflect and wonder exactly why. Maybe then you will aquire the insight into human nature that you seem to be lacking at this point. Or not, I guess I have other things to worry about.

I just think it's a shame that the Republican Party has deteriorated to what it now represents. I used to be a Republican and proud of it, but now I'm ashamed to admit having ever been one. It isn't me that changed either, it was the Party that changed. It just got greedy and corrupt until I could no longer stand it.

I sure wish we had a better choice then Kerry, but he will have to do because everything that Bush has done so far is obviously slanted to favor the rich and powerful. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.

:thumbsup:

We all need and must be Proud to Be Americans again and not insane allegiances to Nut Clubs that both parties have become and simply trade back and forth who is in charge of the Clubhouse.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

Biased BS - the 'and got big tax breaks' exposes this piece. The rich as a percentage or income have never recieved big tax breaks, it is the poor that continue to recieve BIG tax breaks. Did you expect anything better from CBS, probably made this crap up during the latest Gang of 500 call.

For those that do not know the Gang of 500, it is comprised of the top reporters, columnists, and editors that are backing Kerry. They actually have a weekly Monday morning conferene call to plan the weeks attacks on Bush. I bet we will see this exact BS in a few other articles.

Please provide documentation or evidence to support your claim that the poor have received "big tax breaks" over the past two decades. (Is this a verifiable fact, or merely your unsupportable "opinion"?)

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4
"Also, I'm not sure why you said "why would we take it form them" and "we would be doing is hurting them for no gain". We aren't taking anything from them as the poor don't pay income taxes so I don't know where you think there is some "hurt". "

I was reffering to working poor which do pay taxes, People in the 20k to 30k range. check my posts a little earlier in this thread for their tax burden and my dsicussion on it

"The thing I'll take issue with is the claim of "logic" for a progressive tax-code. The only "logic" that it has is emotional. It doesn't base itself on something that can be measured. Why not a 60% income tax on the "rich" and nothing on the "poor" and assuming you think there is a "middle class" then put them at 10%. Why not that? What are the income levels for those? What is it based on? "

There is a very logical rational for it which I will attempt to explain to you now. I doubt I will convince you but at least we will better understand each other. In economics money has a given utility. That's the maount of value you place on it. Its a fundamental consept in economics that the more of it you have the less utility you place on the individual dollars. Therefore, If we have two people. Joe poor has $10. Joe Rich has $1000. Now if I take only 10% from each man. Clearly, Joe poor has $9 now and Joe rich has $900 now. Over the next month, joe poor will struggle to pay his bills to survive, that $1 he will surely miss and would have spent. Joe rich on the other hand has more than enough to live well, by thing for his amusement, and even save some for the future and to make money with. To exagerate to make sure you get the point, if I the government need to fight in a war for both Joe's an I need $400 to by my tanks, clearly I could take 39.6% of Joe riches money and 39.6% of Joe Poors, giving me the $400. Both will be upset I'm sure, Joe rich still has plenty for his basic needs, and the extras he likes to enjoy. Joe poor will have a tough time and he might not be around next tax season unfortunately. The alternative, is for Joe rich to pay 39.9% or $399 and Jor poor to pay 10%. This also adds up to $400 but leaves Joe poor with most of his money and the additional loss of $3 by Joe Rich unlikely to even attract his notice. In the second option, we have changed the burden on Joo Rich by an insignificant amount and given Joe Poor a much better chance to feed and cloth himself. Now I'm not advocating such a riduculous desparity. I believe there is a balance, one in which , there is a balance between promoting capatilism and the healthy competition that results and also between progressivism which can make life FAR easier for one class and make their chance at succes much higher at a loss to the wealthy which is felt minimally. Now which side of this balance you think we're on is up for debate. But there is a logical, non emotional, reason for progressivism. This is why the rich can handle 30% tax brackets and yet still suceed, while the poor would be quite a bit skinnier if they suddenly lost 30% of their wages.

This whole affect is well studied in the academic realm and is quit interesting if you have the time.

Hope this is enlightening and we can see one another's views a little better now.

I'd like to meet the person who makes $20K and pays that much in income tax. Then I'd give them $30 for a copy of TurboTax or other software(TaxAct is free ) I remember those days and even during the Clinton years my income tax bill was no where near what you posted. But that still doesn't answer the question - how exactly are we "hurting" them? Also, what are we "taking" from them that isn't already taken? If you want to make an argument that the tax brackets need moved/changed to different income levels then fine - make that argument, we might even come close on an income level to have as a "floor".

But no, your attempt failed the logic without emotion test. You used "struggle" to pay bills and other emotional triggers in your attempt to contrast and excuse the act of taking a bigger portion of each person's dollar. You based it on your need for emotional gratification - knowing that they may not have to "struggle" as much. This argument may seem "cold" and "uncaring" to some but money is numbers - numbers don't change with your feelings. This notion that you are trying to help joe poor is noble and to an extent I agree but it doesn't make it logical and is still based on your feelings. You said that Joe Rich will buy things for his amusement -which is another attempt to cast a disparaging emotional image on his "fun" contrasting it with the "struggle" as mentioned before. It doesn't pass the test - sorry. I've heard the whole "utility" defense many times before but there is no way of measuring one's personal utility of a dollar, it too bases it's "reasoning"(excuses) on the arbitrary feelings of the beholder.

Now again, I have no problem with setting a floor for tax paying(if we continue to tax labor) because even this cold hearted evil Conservative knows how tough it can be.(that was emotion for those that didn't catch it ) But after that floor - revenue should be spread at an equal rate if we are taxing a labor dollar.

CkG

Its a shame. You're not even trying to understand the opposition arguement. The concept of utility has nothing to do with emotion. The value of a dollar is less if you have more of it. If I have 7$ for a week and it costs me a $1 a day to eat, then each dollar is worth more to me than if I had $30 since the loss of one dollar means I don't eat for a day. The concept can be extended like I attempted to show you to the national level. It streams lines the economy by allowing money that has high utility and will definately be spent, to remain in the consumers hands while money that is less likely to be flowed into the market to be the primary source of taxes. For example, under a pregressive system more of the money that would have been spent in other countries becomes taxed. You also lessen the chance of a failed family unit going into peverty and becoming charity cases for private or public institutions. Failed families units are less able to generate productive services in the economy. So by incresing the occurance of them you decrease over all economic output.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4
"Also, I'm not sure why you said "why would we take it form them" and "we would be doing is hurting them for no gain". We aren't taking anything from them as the poor don't pay income taxes so I don't know where you think there is some "hurt". "

I was reffering to working poor which do pay taxes, People in the 20k to 30k range. check my posts a little earlier in this thread for their tax burden and my dsicussion on it

"The thing I'll take issue with is the claim of "logic" for a progressive tax-code. The only "logic" that it has is emotional. It doesn't base itself on something that can be measured. Why not a 60% income tax on the "rich" and nothing on the "poor" and assuming you think there is a "middle class" then put them at 10%. Why not that? What are the income levels for those? What is it based on? "

There is a very logical rational for it which I will attempt to explain to you now. I doubt I will convince you but at least we will better understand each other. In economics money has a given utility. That's the maount of value you place on it. Its a fundamental consept in economics that the more of it you have the less utility you place on the individual dollars. Therefore, If we have two people. Joe poor has $10. Joe Rich has $1000. Now if I take only 10% from each man. Clearly, Joe poor has $9 now and Joe rich has $900 now. Over the next month, joe poor will struggle to pay his bills to survive, that $1 he will surely miss and would have spent. Joe rich on the other hand has more than enough to live well, by thing for his amusement, and even save some for the future and to make money with. To exagerate to make sure you get the point, if I the government need to fight in a war for both Joe's an I need $400 to by my tanks, clearly I could take 39.6% of Joe riches money and 39.6% of Joe Poors, giving me the $400. Both will be upset I'm sure, Joe rich still has plenty for his basic needs, and the extras he likes to enjoy. Joe poor will have a tough time and he might not be around next tax season unfortunately. The alternative, is for Joe rich to pay 39.9% or $399 and Jor poor to pay 10%. This also adds up to $400 but leaves Joe poor with most of his money and the additional loss of $3 by Joe Rich unlikely to even attract his notice. In the second option, we have changed the burden on Joo Rich by an insignificant amount and given Joe Poor a much better chance to feed and cloth himself. Now I'm not advocating such a riduculous desparity. I believe there is a balance, one in which , there is a balance between promoting capatilism and the healthy competition that results and also between progressivism which can make life FAR easier for one class and make their chance at succes much higher at a loss to the wealthy which is felt minimally. Now which side of this balance you think we're on is up for debate. But there is a logical, non emotional, reason for progressivism. This is why the rich can handle 30% tax brackets and yet still suceed, while the poor would be quite a bit skinnier if they suddenly lost 30% of their wages.

This whole affect is well studied in the academic realm and is quit interesting if you have the time.

Hope this is enlightening and we can see one another's views a little better now.

I'd like to meet the person who makes $20K and pays that much in income tax. Then I'd give them $30 for a copy of TurboTax or other software(TaxAct is free )

CkG

Also, I got those tax numbers from Bushes own web site advertising his tax cuts. People that have that much money have to spend it all and are generally unable to use any tax shelters.

 

[1EZduzit]

Cad, lets look at some of your statements in this thread and then I will follow them up with my ?feelings?.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It doesn't matter. Yours and other's class envy is pretty lame IMO. Quit your bitching and get off your ass and become those you think are evil(the rich). Now if you don't want to be rich(monetarily) the STFU about those who are. They pay more than the rest of us serfs and most people who whine about the tax-cuts also don't realize that the G-dDamn Evil Fvcking Rich bastards pay for everyone else's freaking Medicare and such. How many millionaires do you think will see the "fair share" or even close to what they've paid in? Hmmm...didn't think so.
I was listening to Bob Brinker this weekend on my drive home and he basically said the same thing. People need to quit wining about the tax-cuts because they worked. They put money into the system when it was needed and raising taxes will do nothing but ruin the recovery that is well on it's way.

Anyway - you are the one who sounds like a parrot. You bleat the same tune that has been spouted here a thousand times before and still isn't based on logic. Pfffttt - you guys make me laugh with your little "anti-rich" BS. Come back when you learn a little about Capitalism and how Investing works.

/rant

If there is one argument from the left that pisses me off the most, it's this one about their class envy.

CkG

______________________________________________________________________________________



Class envy? WTF are you talking about? The premise is about the widening gap between rich and poor. You mean you think that the rich should just automatically keep getting richer? You are obviously just spoiling for a fight here, your post isn?t even about the premise. It is about class envy and the ?evil? rich. Who called them evil???

You are the only one that used the word evil, you put the words where you want them to suit your arguments and then you say your not brainwashed. You listen to someone on talk radio and then use that as support for your arguments. Try to come up with your own arguments, instead you ?bleat the same tune? and then you say your not brainwashed.

Then you go on about how Capitalism and investing works. Hey here?s a ?clue? for you. The stock market is a dead dog, People have wised up to the fact that they have to bust their ass to put away $2000/yr while the well-off can easily put $20,000 a year away. If they make 10% then the well off person made more then the struggling person was able to save and invest in the first place. So let?s give them their tax break and their inheritance tax break and their income tax break so they can widen the gap even faster. Does this make any sense to you??? If it did, I?m sure you wouldn?t admit it because as I said earlier you are just voting your pocketbook. Your true ideology is that money is God. The Almighty Dollar.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYPeople earn money - they should be able to keep it and do with it as they wish
People invest money - they should be able to reap the benifits of putting their money at risk
None of this changes with whether or not someone is "rich" or "poor" but some of you wish to take a bigger chunk from those you arbitrarily say "don't need it as much"
***********

glenn1 - good point

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point 1??.i have no problem with that statement

Pint 2??..I beg to differ on that. We have Freedom of Speech but a person doesn?t have the right to stand up in a crowed theater and yell ?Fire?. Because you invest money doesn?t mean you have the right to not pay people a living wage just to maximize the return on your investments. That is why you get defensive about the ?evil? rich because that is exactly what is happening. Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

Point 3 There is nothing ?arbitrary? about it. People who are working full time, 12 months a year, need to be able to make a living without applying for help from the government. If the living wage cut?s into profits or bankrupts a business that?s just the way it is. Perhaps the ?higher ups? should be taking a wage cuts to keep the company afloat. Or perhaps the 10 to 20% return on investment is too much. Maybe both.

The whole point here is that this will get people off the welfare subsidy and save taxes. I don?t want to hear your drivel about supply and demand. Even the lowest income full time employed people should make enough to be able to eat, dress, and have health insurance without assitance from the government.. I don?t care if they are a janitor or a dog catcher or stock shelves at Walmart. If the price of health insurance is too high, then go after the health care industry. I guess as long as you have your bases covered it makes you ?feel? better to sit around and argue with the less fortunate about how much better you are. If it causes inflation and eats into your retirement ?stash?, too fuvking bad. Invest in something else. I would suggest something ?real? this time.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYHere's a tit-for-tat for you:
Why don't you use some of your class envy and robin-hood mentality to actually help people become self-sufficient instead of stealing from those you think have too much. But yeah, I suppose actually trying to help those people isn't your fight - this is all about those evil fscking rich people....

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I am trying to do. No one is ?stealing? anything, that is a figment of your warped imagination. Ask yourself, are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

_________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYMeh - go on hating the "rich" then if it makes you all feel better I guess, but it doesn't make your argument logical.

CkG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What?s not ?logical? about my arguments? You just don?t want to share a ?slice of your pie?. Keep your hands off my stash and you think your blowhard attitude is logical? Puhleese!
____________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYeah, that part got an eyeroll from me too. People just love to lap up that tripe though as evidenced here in this thread.
Now what is the home ownership rate? Stock ownership rate? Hmmm...

Gotta love the John Madden quote in there though - "middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less". That's sort of like Madden saying you have to cross the goal line to score a touch-down. Do people not already grasp that a smaller pay check buys less than a big one? Does the author really think their reader is that dumb? Must be it...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who owns those homes? Who owns those stocks? It?s not the people on the bottom end of the? widening gap?. More of the Almighty Dollar syndrome here, Or as you would say, "the standard right wing drivel.?

____________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYou want to poor to get check from the IRS? Oh wait....that alread happens. What a crock. The revenue collector is directly redistributing the confiscated cash...how nice.
Oh, and the poor or almost poor got a rate cut from 15% to 10%. I'd bet that 5% means alot to those people....but yeah...this is all about those damn evil "rich" assholes...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The earned income credit break you refer to would be eliminated if people were paid a ?living? wage. Another example of how you like to bitch and whine about everyone else without offering any solutions to the problems. Todd is right, you sound just like Rush. All criticism and no solutions. Another clue for you here. Anybody can sit back criticize. It takes some brainpower and a sense of what?s right to find solutions. I sure haven?t seen you offer any up here which as far as I?m concerned says volumes about you. If you want to be taken seriously then you better have a PLAN of some type instead of just picking apart someone else?s.

Puhleese. A 5% tax break to someone paying maybe $500 in taxes? A whole $25 dollars. They might be able to take their family to MacDonald?s if they get the specials. You are a full blown idiot!!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYGuess you don't know much about our tax code then. The Treasury cuts the checks to people who file with the IRS when they pay negative taxes. EIC and other such "credits" make our code such that people who pay/owe little or nothing in taxes on their earnings actually get more back then they may have paid in over the year. Incase you still don't understand - people actually MAKE money by filing taxes. This should never be the case. It should always be a "net 0" situation with taxes.

Pssttt - No you don't have to have spending cuts to go along with tax cuts. In our current situation that would be preferrable to take care of the deficit but that that doesn't mean it has to be done.
I'd prefer we concentrate on the spending issues rather than hearing you guys whine about the "rich"...but then you'd whine about all the wonderful programs the gov't has put in place if they were put on the chopping block.
more dishonesty from the rich haters - I'm not "anti-tax". I'm anti-tax based on arbitrary feelings -which is what you "progressive" redistributionists have bought into.

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that credit wouldn?t be needed if the working people were getting a living wage, but you would whine about that cutting into the stock market and hurting the economy. Hmmm, seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it to.

Pssttt ? We can have tax increases and spending cuts at the same time. If my memory serves me correctly I believe Reagan did that early in his first term? I?m not positive though. In any case it would sure help balance the budget. That?s all the Republicans talked about for years and now all of a sudden it?s OK to overspend, as long as it helps the economy . What your really worried about are your investments falling even further so it?s OK to subsidize the stock market by having a low interest rate to force moe money in, raising the amount of money that can be invested tax free and of course tax cuts for those with enough money to be able to put it in the stock market. The you turn around and whine about EIC. Duhhhh!! Do you really think us that stupid? Bush is so transparent that it isn?t even funny, except when he talks publicly, LOL.

Then more of the standard drivel, ?I?m anti-tax based on arbitrary feelings?. So anything that might increase your tax load is arbitrary to you, but your ideas about taxes aren?t arbitrary? Get real, it?s all arbitrary.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYLike I said - I'd love to see the Fed's budget slashed - regardless of there being tax-cuts or not. The issue of the tax-cuts was to put money into the system -which it has done and was needed due to the recession we had(due to a multitude of reasons). Now some don't believe in tax-cuts but the proof is in the pudding. It has worked before and it is working this time. Sure I'd like to see a smaller Fed budget and I've on many occasions ranted on and on about it.
Now as to this "progressive" BS. It's a flawed system based on arbitrary feelings. If you are going to tax people you need to tax based on their usage or just make it so everyone pays the same amount(rate) based on how you want to collect the tax. Taxing labor isn't the best solution because not everyone works and then the whiners bleat about the "rich" having the stockmarket "scam" or whatever other nonesense they want to spew. So you tax usage - a consumption tax of sorts. Those that use - pay. Those that don't - don't. Ofcourse you'll have the whiners complaining that only the "rich" will be able to afford certain things though. But even as it sits now, with this wonderful "progressive" tax system taxing labor - you have the whiners who don't think the "rich" pay enough. ....and people claim this isn't about "envy" Pfffttt.
*******

Meh - people can keep on hating the "rich" if they want thought...someday the "rich" might just catch wind of your hate and fire your worthless ass and then you'll be out of a job.

This whole issue is asinine because you won't ever have a society that everyone has equal wealth. So the question becomes - how "fair" does it need to be before you people are happy? How close does this so-called "gap" need to be before you all quit whining? Yeah....figures...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I?d love to see the federal budget slashed and the tax cut repealed or even increased to balance the budget. When Bush came into office they were projecting a surplus. Man what a difference 4 years makes. Again you rant about the tax cut based on ?feelings?. Please explain to me how my feeling about it are any different then your feelings about it. You just want a regressive tax to save you money and and put the load on those that can least afford to pay more. It?s based on your ?feelings? fo what's fair. I guess your feelings are more important, huh. To support your argument you say it will be good for the economy. Yeah, your economy and your situation. To me that seems rather hypocritical on your part.

So now it?s threats about being fired? LOL, that?s why I?m all for labor unions to protect the workers and to insure they get fair cost of living raises. That crap has already been going on for some time and needs to stop. We live in a free society and have the right to our ?feelings? and the right to express them without fear of retribution. You show your true colors again.
____________________________________________________________________________________




I could go on, but I believe I?ve shown your ?true colors? ands debunked your tripe well enough for the average thinking man to make his own determination. People who read this can decide for themselves. One thing that I'm curious about is how you people justify having a full time employee who doesn't make enough money to support himself without federal assistance? How do you justify that in your mind? Everybody has a tendancy to vote their pocketbook and this election is going to get interesting. I think most people are so tired of the Right wing pollyana, platitudes, and propaganda that it is going to be a huge victory for the Left. I know if I had any monsy invested in the stock market, I'd be bailing out. Of sourse the greedy ones see it as an opportunity to really make a killing. LOL, that in itself is enough reason for me to vote for Kerry. Misery loves company.

I have to get back to work now to keep the ?wolves? at bay. I got busy at the farm this spring and didn?t quite get my taxes done. I need to make sure I find enough deductions to maximize my EIC.

 

[piasabird]

So is the American Dream of making it rich somehow Evil?

What is the alternative? Communism???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So is the American Dream of making it rich somehow Evil?

What is the alternative? Communism???

"So is the American Dream of making it rich somehow Evil?" When it is corrupted, yes.

"What is the alternative? Communism?" Above mentioned corruption has turned it into America's Rich Radical Communist Neocon Class Vs the lowly Liberal Left.

 

[Wahsapa]

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway" - George W. Bush Time Magazine page 17

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Wahsapa
"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway" - George W. Bush Time Magazine page 17

This is actually 'damning with faint praise'. Or perhaps more accurately 'praising with faint damnation'.

The argument was that under the new system there would be less incentive to cheat, and that there was no way to effectively raise taxes on the wealthy even if you wanted to.

While it's true that a better tax lawyer can probably find ways to minimize your taxes, this was a flippant, and un-convincing argument that GW probably doesn't believe anyway.

The real argument has always been, and continues to be that the rich are:

(1) paying too much already
(2) more capable of driving the economy if they have money given back

The difference in (2) is largely in terms of what rich and poor folk do given extra money. All else being equal (and it rarely is) poor people spend additional income, and rich people invest it. Thus if you are going to cut taxes and not spending (i.e. run a deficit), then enevlope-economics says give the money to the rich, because the deficit is going to discourage savings (which are universally 'too low' in all western nations, empirically) but giving money to people with a propensity to save/invest of nearly 100% will help counteract this.

If you cut spending AND taxes, you may want to give the money to poor people, who will drive consumption in the economy, since the fall in government spending will cause a chain reaction that raises savings anyway.

The key part of this analysis is of course "and it rarely is". In reality, it's nearly impossible to break economic and fiscal policy down to such simple principles.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

One thing that I'm curious about is how you people justify having a full time employee who doesn't make enough money to support himself without federal assistance? How do you justify that in your mind?

Rush, Hannity and CAD & Co will not answer this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Cad, lets look at some of your statements in this thread and then I will follow them up with my ?feelings?.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It doesn't matter. Yours and other's class envy is pretty lame IMO. Quit your bitching and get off your ass and become those you think are evil(the rich). Now if you don't want to be rich(monetarily) the STFU about those who are. They pay more than the rest of us serfs and most people who whine about the tax-cuts also don't realize that the G-dDamn Evil Fvcking Rich bastards pay for everyone else's freaking Medicare and such. How many millionaires do you think will see the "fair share" or even close to what they've paid in? Hmmm...didn't think so.
I was listening to Bob Brinker this weekend on my drive home and he basically said the same thing. People need to quit wining about the tax-cuts because they worked. They put money into the system when it was needed and raising taxes will do nothing but ruin the recovery that is well on it's way.

Anyway - you are the one who sounds like a parrot. You bleat the same tune that has been spouted here a thousand times before and still isn't based on logic. Pfffttt - you guys make me laugh with your little "anti-rich" BS. Come back when you learn a little about Capitalism and how Investing works.

/rant

If there is one argument from the left that pisses me off the most, it's this one about their class envy.

CkG

______________________________________________________________________________________



Class envy? WTF are you talking about? The premise is about the widening gap between rich and poor. You mean you think that the rich should just automatically keep getting richer? You are obviously just spoiling for a fight here, your post isn?t even about the premise. It is about class envy and the ?evil? rich. Who called them evil???

You are the only one that used the word evil, you put the words where you want them to suit your arguments and then you say your not brainwashed. You listen to someone on talk radio and then use that as support for your arguments. Try to come up with your own arguments, instead you ?bleat the same tune? and then you say your not brainwashed.

Then you go on about how Capitalism and investing works. Hey here?s a ?clue? for you. The stock market is a dead dog, People have wised up to the fact that they have to bust their ass to put away $2000/yr while the well-off can easily put $20,000 a year away. If they make 10% then the well off person made more then the struggling person was able to save and invest in the first place. So let?s give them their tax break and their inheritance tax break and their income tax break so they can widen the gap even faster. Does this make any sense to you??? If it did, I?m sure you wouldn?t admit it because as I said earlier you are just voting your pocketbook. Your true ideology is that money is God. The Almighty Dollar.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYPeople earn money - they should be able to keep it and do with it as they wish
People invest money - they should be able to reap the benifits of putting their money at risk
None of this changes with whether or not someone is "rich" or "poor" but some of you wish to take a bigger chunk from those you arbitrarily say "don't need it as much"
***********

glenn1 - good point

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point 1??.i have no problem with that statement

Pint 2??..I beg to differ on that. We have Freedom of Speech but a person doesn?t have the right to stand up in a crowed theater and yell ?Fire?. Because you invest money doesn?t mean you have the right to not pay people a living wage just to maximize the return on your investments. That is why you get defensive about the ?evil? rich because that is exactly what is happening. Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

Point 3 There is nothing ?arbitrary? about it. People who are working full time, 12 months a year, need to be able to make a living without applying for help from the government. If the living wage cut?s into profits or bankrupts a business that?s just the way it is. Perhaps the ?higher ups? should be taking a wage cuts to keep the company afloat. Or perhaps the 10 to 20% return on investment is too much. Maybe both.

The whole point here is that this will get people off the welfare subsidy and save taxes. I don?t want to hear your drivel about supply and demand. Even the lowest income full time employed people should make enough to be able to eat, dress, and have health insurance without assitance from the government.. I don?t care if they are a janitor or a dog catcher or stock shelves at Walmart. If the price of health insurance is too high, then go after the health care industry. I guess as long as you have your bases covered it makes you ?feel? better to sit around and argue with the less fortunate about how much better you are. If it causes inflation and eats into your retirement ?stash?, too fuvking bad. Invest in something else. I would suggest something ?real? this time.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYHere's a tit-for-tat for you:
Why don't you use some of your class envy and robin-hood mentality to actually help people become self-sufficient instead of stealing from those you think have too much. But yeah, I suppose actually trying to help those people isn't your fight - this is all about those evil fscking rich people....

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I am trying to do. No one is ?stealing? anything, that is a figment of your warped imagination. Ask yourself, are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

_________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYMeh - go on hating the "rich" then if it makes you all feel better I guess, but it doesn't make your argument logical.

CkG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What?s not ?logical? about my arguments? You just don?t want to share a ?slice of your pie?. Keep your hands off my stash and you think your blowhard attitude is logical? Puhleese!
____________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYeah, that part got an eyeroll from me too. People just love to lap up that tripe though as evidenced here in this thread.
Now what is the home ownership rate? Stock ownership rate? Hmmm...

Gotta love the John Madden quote in there though - "middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less". That's sort of like Madden saying you have to cross the goal line to score a touch-down. Do people not already grasp that a smaller pay check buys less than a big one? Does the author really think their reader is that dumb? Must be it...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who owns those homes? Who owns those stocks? It?s not the people on the bottom end of the? widening gap?. More of the Almighty Dollar syndrome here, Or as you would say, "the standard right wing drivel.?

____________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYYou want to poor to get check from the IRS? Oh wait....that alread happens. What a crock. The revenue collector is directly redistributing the confiscated cash...how nice.
Oh, and the poor or almost poor got a rate cut from 15% to 10%. I'd bet that 5% means alot to those people....but yeah...this is all about those damn evil "rich" assholes...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The earned income credit break you refer to would be eliminated if people were paid a ?living? wage. Another example of how you like to bitch and whine about everyone else without offering any solutions to the problems. Todd is right, you sound just like Rush. All criticism and no solutions. Another clue for you here. Anybody can sit back criticize. It takes some brainpower and a sense of what?s right to find solutions. I sure haven?t seen you offer any up here which as far as I?m concerned says volumes about you. If you want to be taken seriously then you better have a PLAN of some type instead of just picking apart someone else?s.

Puhleese. A 5% tax break to someone paying maybe $500 in taxes? A whole $25 dollars. They might be able to take their family to MacDonald?s if they get the specials. You are a full blown idiot!!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYGuess you don't know much about our tax code then. The Treasury cuts the checks to people who file with the IRS when they pay negative taxes. EIC and other such "credits" make our code such that people who pay/owe little or nothing in taxes on their earnings actually get more back then they may have paid in over the year. Incase you still don't understand - people actually MAKE money by filing taxes. This should never be the case. It should always be a "net 0" situation with taxes.

Pssttt - No you don't have to have spending cuts to go along with tax cuts. In our current situation that would be preferrable to take care of the deficit but that that doesn't mean it has to be done.
I'd prefer we concentrate on the spending issues rather than hearing you guys whine about the "rich"...but then you'd whine about all the wonderful programs the gov't has put in place if they were put on the chopping block.
more dishonesty from the rich haters - I'm not "anti-tax". I'm anti-tax based on arbitrary feelings -which is what you "progressive" redistributionists have bought into.

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that credit wouldn?t be needed if the working people were getting a living wage, but you would whine about that cutting into the stock market and hurting the economy. Hmmm, seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it to.

Pssttt ? We can have tax increases and spending cuts at the same time. If my memory serves me correctly I believe Reagan did that early in his first term? I?m not positive though. In any case it would sure help balance the budget. That?s all the Republicans talked about for years and now all of a sudden it?s OK to overspend, as long as it helps the economy . What your really worried about are your investments falling even further so it?s OK to subsidize the stock market by having a low interest rate to force moe money in, raising the amount of money that can be invested tax free and of course tax cuts for those with enough money to be able to put it in the stock market. The you turn around and whine about EIC. Duhhhh!! Do you really think us that stupid? Bush is so transparent that it isn?t even funny, except when he talks publicly, LOL.

Then more of the standard drivel, ?I?m anti-tax based on arbitrary feelings?. So anything that might increase your tax load is arbitrary to you, but your ideas about taxes aren?t arbitrary? Get real, it?s all arbitrary.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYLike I said - I'd love to see the Fed's budget slashed - regardless of there being tax-cuts or not. The issue of the tax-cuts was to put money into the system -which it has done and was needed due to the recession we had(due to a multitude of reasons). Now some don't believe in tax-cuts but the proof is in the pudding. It has worked before and it is working this time. Sure I'd like to see a smaller Fed budget and I've on many occasions ranted on and on about it.
Now as to this "progressive" BS. It's a flawed system based on arbitrary feelings. If you are going to tax people you need to tax based on their usage or just make it so everyone pays the same amount(rate) based on how you want to collect the tax. Taxing labor isn't the best solution because not everyone works and then the whiners bleat about the "rich" having the stockmarket "scam" or whatever other nonesense they want to spew. So you tax usage - a consumption tax of sorts. Those that use - pay. Those that don't - don't. Ofcourse you'll have the whiners complaining that only the "rich" will be able to afford certain things though. But even as it sits now, with this wonderful "progressive" tax system taxing labor - you have the whiners who don't think the "rich" pay enough. ....and people claim this isn't about "envy" Pfffttt.
*******

Meh - people can keep on hating the "rich" if they want thought...someday the "rich" might just catch wind of your hate and fire your worthless ass and then you'll be out of a job.

This whole issue is asinine because you won't ever have a society that everyone has equal wealth. So the question becomes - how "fair" does it need to be before you people are happy? How close does this so-called "gap" need to be before you all quit whining? Yeah....figures...

CkG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I?d love to see the federal budget slashed and the tax cut repealed or even increased to balance the budget. When Bush came into office they were projecting a surplus. Man what a difference 4 years makes. Again you rant about the tax cut based on ?feelings?. Please explain to me how my feeling about it are any different then your feelings about it. You just want a regressive tax to save you money and and put the load on those that can least afford to pay more. It?s based on your ?feelings? fo what's fair. I guess your feelings are more important, huh. To support your argument you say it will be good for the economy. Yeah, your economy and your situation. To me that seems rather hypocritical on your part.

So now it?s threats about being fired? LOL, that?s why I?m all for labor unions to protect the workers and to insure they get fair cost of living raises. That crap has already been going on for some time and needs to stop. We live in a free society and have the right to our ?feelings? and the right to express them without fear of retribution. You show your true colors again.
____________________________________________________________________________________




I could go on, but I believe I?ve shown your ?true colors? ands debunked your tripe well enough for the average thinking man to make his own determination. People who read this can decide for themselves. One thing that I'm curious about is how you people justify having a full time employee who doesn't make enough money to support himself without federal assistance? How do you justify that in your mind? Everybody has a tendancy to vote their pocketbook and this election is going to get interesting. I think most people are so tired of the Right wing pollyana, platitudes, and propaganda that it is going to be a huge victory for the Left. I know if I had any monsy invested in the stock market, I'd be bailing out. Of sourse the greedy ones see it as an opportunity to really make a killing. LOL, that in itself is enough reason for me to vote for Kerry. Misery loves company.

I have to get back to work now to keep the ?wolves? at bay. I got busy at the farm this spring and didn?t quite get my taxes done. I need to make sure I find enough deductions to maximize my EIC.

Buahaha - now that was a funny read but you still aren't doing well with your reading issues.
First off, you don't have any clue about me or my pocket book, but i'll give you a hint. I'm not "rich" by any stretch of your liberal imagination. Money is not my "God", nor will it ever be. I am "wealthy" in many other ways but all that does not mean I can't stand up for what is right as far as taxation.

Alright genius -what is a "living wage"? I'd say it's $13/hr...or maybe $20/hr if I was in a bad mood that day - what do YOU think a living wage is? You see, the problem with this BS called "living wage" is that it isn't something YOU can decide for other people nor should the gov't. If a person doesn't like the wage they are being paid -they don't have to work for that wage or employer. It really is that simple. This whole so-called "living wage" is nothing but a meaningless liberal chant.
Umm...yes it is arbitrary. At what point do you think a person doesn't "need it as much"? Where is the cut off? No, not generalities - You need specific dollars because that's what is taxed - your income dollars. Please, be my guest. Be the first liberal to succeed in coming up with a specific dollar figure or formula that is backed up by non-emotional logic. I won't wait up.....

Ah, but it is stealing when you target someone you think won't notice it going away. Confiscation is what the gov't does, but what you redistributionists do is want to steal.
Yes, you are part of the problem and your way of thinking has gotten us nowhere but deeper in this pit. Prosperity is there for those who wish to strive for it but one needs to take responsibility for themselves. You see, that is where your type of thinking always seems to run amok. Your type of thinking puts the responsibility on the gov't instead of on the individual. So I think you should have asked yourself the solution/problem question while looking into moonie's mirror.

No, you don't understand the issue if you think I don't want to pay taxes or think I shouldn't have to pay taxes. Again, I'm not anti-tax...sheesh...

Umm, look at the stats buddy. There are plenty of people who own homes and stocks - not just the "rich". Stocks aren't meant for those on the bottom because stocks are to INVEST. If you don't make enough money to pay your bills then you shouldn't be investing in stocks, but maybe you should invest in a better education or investigate new employment Again, you miss the point and bleat on and on about some "almighty dollar syndrome", which ofcourse is not the case here. But you can keep on thinking that if it helps you sleep at night.

:roll: You really need to stop using that "living wage" BS because it is nothing but a liberal buzzword to trot out when you can't hack a economic discussion. No, actually it is the redistributionists who are all whine and bitch and no solution. I've offered solutions - you are obviously to challenged in the reading department to understand such things though. There have been many discussions about this on here and just because you are new here(to P&N) you spout off. Well, junior, You might want to try reading what I've posted here before tossing out such accusations
*sigh* - yes, it would be a great feeling to know that every full time employed person had enough food...blah blah blah, but again - who are YOU to say they shouldn't work for the wage they earn? Have you ever thought that these people actually CHOSE to work those jobs for that pay? No one FORCED them - they chose it. Now some whiny ass libby will come in and claim they had no choice or didn't have the opportunity to do anything else. Well, that is nothing but blaming everyone or anything but the person who actually had the choice. People control their destiny and their lives - it's high time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and choices in life. Sounds harsh? Well tough, I've had enough of this panty waist psychobabble about it not ever being their fault. Yes, sh!t happens but sh!t happens to everyone - you have to pick up and move on. It's not a hard concept.
Eh? argue with the less fortunate? WTF are you blubbering about? Sounds to me like you are just tossing accusations around again without actually thinking.

Exactly - you'd love to see taxes increased. Go figure. You see, if the budget was slashed we wouldn't need tax increases. The gov't took in ~2 TRILLION dollars last year. Do you really think that isn't enough money for them to run? I suppose if you look at the gov't as a redistribution center then 2TRILLION isn't enough but for normal people - it WAY TO FREAKING MUCH!
Hehe - nice try with that spin but I am not putting a bigger load on anyone else. YOU and the other redistributionists want others to pay a bigger portion of their dollar earned than everyone else, so don't project your problem on me. I am for each person paying the same rate on a dollar earned....if we are going to tax labor(income).
Buahahaha - don't tell me you are a union lap-dog too. Puhleeze, spare the forum from seeing your "labor movements" black-eyes and drop that issue right now. Unions have become what they once fought -they are no better than those evil greedy corporate rich guys(and some could argue they are worse).
Sure, you can show your "feelings" but don't try to make a logical argument based on them. You see, you are trying sooooo hard to beat me or whatever you think - but you are only beating yourself. If you'd actually read - I even presented my "feelings" on a matter and specifically pointed it out - so your little accusation is nothing but another dart that doesn't stick.

Yeah, you have gone on and on and you've shown your true colors and debunked your own tripe and accusations. Yep, people can read and decide. They will see you for the big gov't redistributionist you have presented yourself as.
Eh? Since when does an employer determine their pay on your household income? Should I go and ask my boss for a raise because my household needs more money? Or shouldn't your question actually be - why does a person choose to accept a wage that is beneath their needs.
Yeah, some may be tired of hearing about personal responsibility but there are plenty of people who are tired of this spineless liberal tripe that it isn't your fault. So sure, you can talk yourself into thinking that the left is going to win big but I'm sure you won't be the only leftist whining and ranting on here when Bush wins again Hell, it's been 4 years and moonie(and some others) still hasn't admitted that Bush won the election, so it'll be fun watching you all again this time.

CkG

 

[1EZduzit]

How come you say ground zero for taxes is no more back then you paid in but gound zero for wages is less then you can live on? You are a brainwshed idiot in my opinion. It is as plain as the nose on your ugly face. Buhawhahaha

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Here's a tit-for-tat for you:
Why don't you use some of your class envy and robin-hood mentality to actually help people become self-sufficient instead of stealing from those you think have too much. But yeah, I suppose actually trying to help those people isn't your fight - this is all about those evil fscking rich people....

CkG

What do you think he is trying to do? How is a fair wage for a job well done bein a "class envy" or a "robin hood mentality"? BTW, what have you done to help out people that need it? I assume you must have or you wouldn't bew cutting someone else down about it?

This isn't about cutting down those who can't help themselves, nor is this about me. This is about the fact that some of you want to take from those you feel don't need it as much. Well, WTF are you to arbitrarily confiscate money based on your feelings?
This so-called "fair wage" is crap too. Have you ever met someone who thought they got paid "enough"? No, people always think they should be paid more for the work they do. YOU don't get to set what is "fair" -the individual does. The individual isn't FORCED to work for that pay - they can leave that employer anytime they wish. But on the flip side you seem to be the sort that wants to FORCE all employers to pay according to YOUR feelings instead of allowing it to be an individual's choice. Quit trying to play robin hood and try actually helping the people instead of giving them a hand out by stealing from others.
No, I'm not a "have" in the sense people are yapping about here. I make a survivable living now but it hasn't always been that way. Have you tried to raise a kid on $6.40/hr? Exactly... It wasn't what I wanted to do but I did what I had to do. I eventually got myself out of that position and have worked my way to where I am today. It took risks and wasn't easy but it can be done. I moved away from my family to start a different job with only enough money for gas to get there. Eventually I saved enough to find a decent place to move into down here so they could move with me. Bah - like it matters anyway. Some of you won't believe that people control their own destiny and only want to "blame" those who they feel have too much. Now again, I have no problem with helping those who can't help themselves but it's time for more personal responsibility and less reliance on the gov't and confiscating money based on an arbitrary feeling.

Meh - go on hating the "rich" then if it makes you all feel better I guess, but it doesn't make your argument logical.

CkG

You know, I sat down and spent 20 minutes writing a reply to this, but before I posted it I refreshed and read all the latest posts. I then deleted my reply because it is obvious to me that you are just like a ricochet off a flat rock. You respond to posts without having read them through, your shooting from the hip most of the time, your responses are emotional and personal yet you critisize others for that, and last but not least you actually believe the drivel. You remind me of Rush as he sat there critizing the drug addicts when he was abusing drugs himself. The double standard is getting so bad that it is going to be the ruin of this country. That is the main reason I will be voting for Kerry. I'm an avid hunter and a fiscal conservative, but we need to get rid of the ultra conservative judges and bring more of a balance to this country and anybody who can't see that is just a damn fool or just doesn't want to admit it because their pocketbook is more important to them then their freedom.

That's all folks.

Hehe, another person tires of punching the Schmoo. Caddy is a forum bot.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MoonbeamHehe, another person tires of punching the Schmoo. Caddy is a forum bot.

Hehe - yeah, it's always fun beating back the insanity the left spews forth. They usualy tire of trying to come up with new excuses to support their unsupportable issues though...or they just plain wake up and join reality

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
How come you say ground zero for taxes is no more back then you paid in but gound zero for wages is less then you can live on? You are a brainwshed idiot in my opinion. It is as plain as the nose on your ugly face. Buhawhahaha

Ummmm because like I said(if you'd ever take time to read) - wages aren't based on your household budget. But taxes are(should be) based on the Fed's budget. You as an individual trade your time for money. If you chose to accept a wage that is below what you can live on - now how is that anyones but your own choice? The tax COLLECTION part should NOT be paying people to file their taxes - it should be net 0.

Awww... isn't it cute... I remember third grade too. :roll:

CkG

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: tss4
You see there is a logical viewpoint here. Too much pregressivism is bad, but the rational for some progressivism in the tax code is solidly built upon the foundation of logic.

Why are people denying the role of/ for emotions in the formation of a tax code?

Why is it not perfectly reasonable to take "emotional" (perhaps a better word would be "moral") considerations such as fairness, compassion, & decency into account when thinkng about an appropriate tax code?

 

[Jhhnn]

From aidanjm-

"Why are people denying the role of/ for emotions in the formation of a tax code?"

They don't when it suits their purposes. Witness CkG's appeal about "family farms", above, and the Republican reference to estate taxes as "Death Taxes"- possibly one of the most emotionally loaded phrases coined in some time... There's also "Tax Relief" where folks who need no relief at all get the most. This emotional framing extends to every aspect of policy in the Bush Admin. All we need to do is think about just a little bit to understand the true objective- to break the fiscal integrity of the govt thru looting by the wealthy, forever alter the balance between wealth and egalitarian democracy. Current tax breaks are merely an illusion, utterly unsustainable even over a ten year time frame. Those who are currently pulling the strings know this all too well- they're just buying folks off, rather cheaply, making them complicit. To pursue current policy is to end up like Argentina, Brazil, and a host of others- owned by the bankers, paying high taxes merely to maintain the debt, selling off assets to postpone the inevitable collapse.

I've challenged the anti-tax crowd repeatedly to sketch the outlines of a politically acceptable balanced federal budget that doesn't include tax increases for somebody. I've also pointed out that curent policy just makes things worse, at an alarming rate... all I've heard so far are crickets, and greed based justifications as to why such looting of the common interest is good...

Ten years from today, whe boomers like myself seek to retire, we'll be told that the govt can't afford it, even though we've provided substantial surpluses to the SS fund since 1983. And our taxes won't be any lower, either, since debt maintenance will consume more than the military or HHS... get ready to work 'til you drop, so that the political donor class can keep making record profits and paying some of the lowest taxes in the developed world...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MoonbeamHehe, another person tires of punching the Schmoo. Caddy is a forum bot.

Hehe - yeah, it's always fun beating back the insanity the left spews forth. They usualy tire of trying to come up with new excuses to support their unsupportable issues though...or they just plain wake up and join reality

CkG

Do you really think people stop answering because you've effectively answered their arguments? And in addition, that all your views are well-considered and infinitely more defensible?

That's fantastic

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MoonbeamHehe, another person tires of punching the Schmoo. Caddy is a forum bot.

Hehe - yeah, it's always fun beating back the insanity the left spews forth. They usualy tire of trying to come up with new excuses to support their unsupportable issues though...or they just plain wake up and join reality

CkG

Do you really think people stop answering because you've effectively answered their arguments? And in addition, that all your views are well-considered and infinitely more defensible?

That's fantastic

Actually that tact that many of his Company use is quite successful, posting paragraphs ang paragraphs of pure bull so long that you have to scroll through more than a whole page just to get through one post effectively kills the thread many times as far as I'm concerned, I'm sure I am not alone. Unfortunatelly it leads to an increase in thread volume making it look like the OT landscape and that is a shame.
:thumbsdown:

Of course then you have that other Parrot Avatar's tact of Posting a ton of nonsensical posts from God know where he gets the links to those sites and then cuts and runs. Thank God he has cut down a bit on that. That really makes P&N look like OT.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I usually disagree with CAD, and I find a lot of his arguments pretty weak, but (and this comes up once in a while for people on both sides) he doesn't bring the absolute worst arguments to the table in comparison to some others.

I just thought it would be pretty weird if he really thought that when he does resort to FUD (as it seems to me has happened in this thread) it's actually convincing anyone.

Edit - another pet peeve is that people on both sides of arguments often choose to respond to the worst arguments offered, and ignore the good ones. If it isn't worth the time to argue well, it probably isn't worth the time to argue at all. I'm sure I do this too, but it's not a good tactic, even if it may be easier.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MoonbeamHehe, another person tires of punching the Schmoo. Caddy is a forum bot.

Hehe - yeah, it's always fun beating back the insanity the left spews forth. They usualy tire of trying to come up with new excuses to support their unsupportable issues though...or they just plain wake up and join reality

CkG

Is that what you think you're doing? All this time I thought you were just helping me to point out how insensitive, shallow, and corrupt the Right wing has become. Actually, I think people just get tired of arguing with you. It's apparent to me that you are a fool and only a fool argues with another fool. It's just a waste of time.

If they want to, anybody can justify something they percieve as "coming their way". Everybody does it, it's human nature, but you do it on such a grand scale. Until you learn to empathize with someone else's veiwpoint a little, you will never be a "great communicator".

 

[TaylorD]

Hypothetically, all persons in the US take the same amount "out of the system" - so the fairest form of taxation would be a flat per person fee, not percentage. Obviously, however, this is fiscally implausible and its implementation would be rife with problems.

So the next fairest thing would be to tax all income, of all persons at the same rate. This doesn't mean that "everyone pays the same taxes" as some think, that would be the situation above. This means (for example) the guy who makes $50k pays $10,000 and the guy who makes $50,000,000 is paying $10,000,000 into the system.

Our current system is graded, meaning the more you make the higher percentage taxes you pay. I for one do not understand how this ever became an acceptable practice. Essentially you are paying taxes into the system for a service. A very small scale, simplified version of this would be, say you go to get your car washed, and instead of a price, it costs a % of your income, and the % is higher the more money you make. You are getting the same services for MORE money. I can't see any argument of this as "fair" or "just" in any way. Whether or not someone can bear to be without something has no impact on whether or not taking it from them is just.

This is entirely a redistribution of wealth, though very very far from communism (not worthy of even making a comparison.) I am not saying I am entirely against some degree of redistribution, I just wish it was closer to the flat % tax across the board then this graded system we have now.


As we all know, items that were once considered luxuries for the rich are now a part of everyday life for all Americans. I certainly support government aid to the single mother trying to raise a family, but not to the jackass who doesn't have a job and isn't doing anything about it. The problem is its difficult to create a perfect system that distinguishes between those who are truly in need and those who aren't. (The first difficult step is deciding where that line is drawn.)

On a sidenote, the wealthiest 1% gives more than twice as much on a % basis to charity. (http://www.ustrust.com/ustrust/html/knowledge/WealthManagementInsights/SurveyofAffluentAmericans/CharitableGiving.html) So they are paying more in taxes (a lot more in dollar terms, and about twice in % terms, see top 1% vs Total; http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html#AverageTaxRate) and contributing more to charity. I am tired of everyone claiming the wealthy are evil - they do a fair amount for the country. I'd hope to be in the top 1% someday, and I don't think everyone who is well off has bad intentions.

EDIT: links fixed