Income Gap Of Poor, Rich, Widens

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.

Yeah, sure -whatever you say. :roll:
No, this isn't an emotional issue, but yes I do post with passion. The point is -this argument boils down to the fact that some people want others to pay more than the rest based on their emotions instead of logic. Again, the issue isn't an emotional one(incase you missed it once again).

Yeah, the double standards are getting bad but that isn't the issue here. The issue is those who want to use the gov't to redistribute money based on their feelings.
I don't give a rats ass if you are a hunter or claim to be a kinda Conservative or Conservative only for fiscal purposes but yet you are going to vote for kerry - sure...and I'm going to vote for Nader because I care about the Environment. You've just boughten into the spew of the left...how's it feel to be hooked through the gills? :roll:
I very much care about my freedom and that includes the freedom of deciding where the money I earn goes...unlike some who think they know better than I do about where the money should go. I think your BS about ultra-Conservative judges is tripe and this "balance" spew is laughable so in the view of this Conservative - you would be the fool.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4
Look, like I said almost every country in the world uses a progressive system. The simple truth of the matter is poor people cannot pay their fair share. they are allready struggling to survive. As to the use of tax cuts to stimulate the economy why are you so sure that giving the rich a higher percentage drop in taxes more effectivelly stimulates the economy? I can just as easily make the arguement that a tax cut for poor people and the middle class will result in a bigger boom for the economy. Poor people and the middle class have to spend their money. They will increase the demand for goods and services in turn. That's good for business. Rich people don't have to spend that money.

Hey, if other countries want it - they can have it.

The problem with your scenario is that the poor don't have the quantity of money to change the flow of the economy whereas the "rich" do. You could give the "poor" all their tax money back and it probably wouldn't hardly make a blip onthe screen because they just don't have the quantity to change the massive economy. The other problem is that the "poor" did get a tax cut if they pay taxes

But anyway - I'll repeat my question for the redistributionists:
"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?"

Any solutions from the "progressives"? How long are you going to keep fighting for this failed "progressive" tax system since it still hasn't worked to curb the poor? Time to try a new approach to fix the "poverty" problem? or should we just give them more money? Please - will someone try to answer instead of giving up?

CkG

 

[Zephyr106]

Those who were against the invasion of Iraq should get a tax cut.

Those who rooted for Shawk and Awe should pay for it.

Zephyr

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4
Look, like I said almost every country in the world uses a progressive system. The simple truth of the matter is poor people cannot pay their fair share. they are allready struggling to survive. As to the use of tax cuts to stimulate the economy why are you so sure that giving the rich a higher percentage drop in taxes more effectivelly stimulates the economy? I can just as easily make the arguement that a tax cut for poor people and the middle class will result in a bigger boom for the economy. Poor people and the middle class have to spend their money. They will increase the demand for goods and services in turn. That's good for business. Rich people don't have to spend that money.

Hey, if other countries want it - they can have it.

The problem with your scenario is that the poor don't have the quantity of money to change the flow of the economy whereas the "rich" do. You could give the "poor" all their tax money back and it probably wouldn't hardly make a blip onthe screen because they just don't have the quantity to change the massive economy. The other problem is that the "poor" did get a tax cut if they pay taxes

But anyway - I'll repeat my question for the redistributionists:
"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?"

Any solutions from the "progressives"? How long are you going to keep fighting for this failed "progressive" tax system since it still hasn't worked to curb the poor? Time to try a new approach to fix the "poverty" problem? or should we just give them more money? Please - will someone try to answer instead of giving up?

CkG

I'm actually, quite happy with the balance as it is, perosnally. Its not like I'm envious of other peoples money, I do quite well for myself. Its just that I grew up in a family where my dad worked hard and sure he wasn't college educated but every penny the government didn't tax him directly improved the quality of life for me and my brothers.

"You could give the "poor" all their tax money back and it probably wouldn't hardly make a blip on the screen because they just don't have the quantity to change the massive economy. "

Right there, you just argued for what I'm saying. Sure, those taxes can't even make a blip on the radar screen for the national budget, but you better believe that for each and every one of those poor people that money was sorely lost. So why would we take it form them when ir doesn't make any significant difference for us. All we would be doing is hurting them for no gain. 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.

 

[TheGameIs21]

This is just a fundamental difference in ideaology between the left and right. The left will never convince the right that this is wrong and the right will never convince the left that it is correct.

I am on the right. I am in the 40 - 50K salary range (from what I have been told, I am lower middle class in NW Oklahoma) and I have recieved annual pay raises the past 5 years that are double any "cost of living" averages in my area (COLA raises have been from 2.8 - 4% annually over the past 5 years). I have no college degree and I am in the IT Industry. I think that I am doing pretty well and if this job goes, I will find another. Maybe not doing what I want but life is like that.

And this "tax burden" that I am suddenly under. I have three kids and bought a home last year and we get money back from the government every year without accountants or lawyers assistance. I don't know where everyone else is burdened but maybe they just aren't budgeting their money correctly.

 

[Stunt]

A widening lower and upper class is not a good thing.
means there there is still lots of money on the market to bid prices higher and the poor are too poor to buy essential services and products.

This is exaclty why 15% or more americans have no health insurance and why low income earners cannot afford to send their kids to school (unless they get help for being geniuses...but the above average student will not afford it or get the assistance they need.)

The whole reason for a progressive tax system is it keeps the demographic in line. There are less rich to bid prices higher, and allow for social spending to help with social class elasticity. I feel little sympathy for rich people as they make plenty to live off of and what is one less summer home, a little less designer clothes, less stock portfolio?...

And i agree with sandorski, it's not just income tax, low income families tend to buy more consumer goods to survive, they aren't big on saving or investing...for obvious reasons.

It doesn't really matter who pays the most tax or who contributes to the pot more. Fact of the matter is, even with the US's sub par UNIVERSAL social services as compared to other countries in the 1st world, massive budget deficit and widening upper and lower class....It is obvious that the current tax system does not work!

If the poor were getting richer and rich doing the same, this would be another story, but a divisive society can only take a turn for the worst if inflation starts to take. Remember the people driving the economy are the lower income earners. They have been the only ones able to keep the revenues high for the likes of walmart and whatever. The poorer the consumers get, the less they will buy. The rich do not buy enouigh goods to drive an entire economy as big as the US'.

And for the record my household pays largest tax bracket. And i am not alone, the rich usually vote Democrat, please explain this one if it is so unfair as you say. The rich want to be taxed as long it is helping their fellow countryman and helps with the economy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is just a fundamental difference in ideaology between the left and right. The left will never convince the right that this is wrong and the right will never convince the left that it is correct.

I am on the right. I am in the 40 - 50K salary range (from what I have been told, I am lower middle class in NW Oklahoma) and I have recieved annual pay raises the past 5 years that are double any "cost of living" averages in my area (COLA raises have been from 2.8 - 4% annually over the past 5 years). I have no college degree and I am in the IT Industry. I think that I am doing pretty well and if this job goes, I will find another. Maybe not doing what I want but life is like that.

And this "tax burden" that I am suddenly under. I have three kids and bought a home last year and we get money back from the government every year without accountants or lawyers assistance. I don't know where everyone else is burdened but maybe they just aren't budgeting their money correctly.

LOL, I'd like to see Paris Hilton get by on your budget

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is just a fundamental difference in ideaology between the left and right. The left will never convince the right that this is wrong and the right will never convince the left that it is correct.

I am on the right. I am in the 40 - 50K salary range (from what I have been told, I am lower middle class in NW Oklahoma) and I have recieved annual pay raises the past 5 years that are double any "cost of living" averages in my area (COLA raises have been from 2.8 - 4% annually over the past 5 years). I have no college degree and I am in the IT Industry. I think that I am doing pretty well and if this job goes, I will find another. Maybe not doing what I want but life is like that.

And this "tax burden" that I am suddenly under. I have three kids and bought a home last year and we get money back from the government every year without accountants or lawyers assistance. I don't know where everyone else is burdened but maybe they just aren't budgeting their money correctly.

Actually, the Bush tax cuts weren't too bad in your salary range if you have kids and own a home. To be honest, I'm for a progressive system, but its not you I'm trying to help at all. Its the family trying to get by on 20k to 30k. Sure some of them make that because they're slackers but a lot of them work there butts off and taxing them doesn't bring in any significant money anyway.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is just a fundamental difference in ideaology between the left and right. The left will never convince the right that this is wrong and the right will never convince the left that it is correct.

I am on the right. I am in the 40 - 50K salary range (from what I have been told, I am lower middle class in NW Oklahoma) and I have recieved annual pay raises the past 5 years that are double any "cost of living" averages in my area (COLA raises have been from 2.8 - 4% annually over the past 5 years). I have no college degree and I am in the IT Industry. I think that I am doing pretty well and if this job goes, I will find another. Maybe not doing what I want but life is like that.

And this "tax burden" that I am suddenly under. I have three kids and bought a home last year and we get money back from the government every year without accountants or lawyers assistance. I don't know where everyone else is burdened but maybe they just aren't budgeting their money correctly.

Actually, the Bush tax cuts weren't too bad in your salary range if you have kids and own a home. To be honest, I'm for a progressive system, but its not you I'm trying to help at all. Its the family trying to get by on 20k to 30k. Sure some of them make that because they're slackers but a lot of them work there butts off and taxing them doesn't bring in any significant money anyway.

What tax bracket do the 20 - 30K income range fall in? How much do they pay on the average.... I don't see them paying much in. As a matter of fact, they get the majority of the money they paid in, back at tax time.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is just a fundamental difference in ideaology between the left and right. The left will never convince the right that this is wrong and the right will never convince the left that it is correct.

I am on the right. I am in the 40 - 50K salary range (from what I have been told, I am lower middle class in NW Oklahoma) and I have recieved annual pay raises the past 5 years that are double any "cost of living" averages in my area (COLA raises have been from 2.8 - 4% annually over the past 5 years). I have no college degree and I am in the IT Industry. I think that I am doing pretty well and if this job goes, I will find another. Maybe not doing what I want but life is like that.

And this "tax burden" that I am suddenly under. I have three kids and bought a home last year and we get money back from the government every year without accountants or lawyers assistance. I don't know where everyone else is burdened but maybe they just aren't budgeting their money correctly.

Actually, the Bush tax cuts weren't too bad in your salary range if you have kids and own a home. To be honest, I'm for a progressive system, but its not you I'm trying to help at all. Its the family trying to get by on 20k to 30k. Sure some of them make that because they're slackers but a lot of them work there butts off and taxing them doesn't bring in any significant money anyway.

What tax bracket do the 20 - 30K income range fall in? How much do they pay on the average....

20K income: ~$1500
30K income: ~$3000

Compare that to me. I make about $130000. I paid about 15k last year. Sure, that's a higher precentage, but it doesn't take food off my table. If I save that money, I'm just as likely to spend it in Jaimaca then I am here, where as joe 30k will be spending it almost immediatly for things he needs.

And before people read this post without going back and reading prior posts, I'm not argueing that the rich screw the poor over, just that if we are going to have tax cuts then take care of the working poor first. Especially, since they contribute such an insignificant portion of the tax revenue anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4
I'm actually, quite happy with the balance as it is, perosnally. Its not like I'm envious of other peoples money, I do quite well for myself. Its just that I grew up in a family where my dad worked hard and sure he wasn't college educated but every penny the government didn't tax him directly improved the quality of life for me and my brothers.

"You could give the "poor" all their tax money back and it probably wouldn't hardly make a blip on the screen because they just don't have the quantity to change the massive economy. "

Right there, you just argued for what I'm saying. Sure, those taxes can't even make a blip on the radar screen for the national budget, but you better believe that for each and every one of those poor people that money was sorely lost. So why would we take it form them when ir doesn't make any significant difference for us. All we would be doing is hurting them for no gain. 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.

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? That's right...nothing...except feelings and emotions.
This is what gives a flat type tax logical superiority because all pay the same minus the very poor(but only because of emotion ). The tax rate for all is determined by the amount of money the gov't needs to operate. But anyway, this all assumes the gov't would get back to only doing what it was originally charged with doing.

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 will definately agree that too much progressivism is bad...but I'm sure we'll disagree on the level of such.

CkG

 

[ReiAyanami]

take national defense for example. a rich man and a poor man pay to have their lives AND property protected. one has much more property to protect. (and as michael moore points out, its usually the poor man that does the fighting [and life losing])

a rich person such as bill gates should have to pay more for the government to defend their $50+ billion. he owns more and likewise should pay more for it to be protected. does it cost more for the police to protect a 1000 acre multimillionaire's house, or your 1/4th acre plop of land?

it was funny when the republicans were offered a modified estate tax plan (aka death tax) that exempt upto $100 million, but they still rejected it because they want 100% exempt. fortunately, ppl like billy are donating virtually 100% of their wealth to charity, hope he does find the cure for malaria

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
take national defense for example. a rich man and a poor man pay to have their lives AND property protected. one has much more property to protect. (and as michael moore points out, its usually the poor man that does the fighting [and life losing])

a rich person such as bill gates should have to pay more for the government to defend their $50+ billion. he owns more and likewise should pay more for it to be protected. does it cost more for the police to protect a 1000 acre multimillionaire's house, or your 1/4th acre plop of land?

What if you are a billionaire and live in a small, 2-bedroom house on a 1/4 acre lot? You still want your level of income to be taxed at a higher percent? How is that "fair?"

And quoting MM? :roll: Last timed I checked, joining the armed forces is still strictly voluntary. What if I can show that most firefighters are white, and are of Irish descent? Does that mean that white people (of Irish descent) should get breaks on fire insurance? It's a stupid, illogical argument. I'd drop it quick, if I were you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
take national defense for example. a rich man and a poor man pay to have their lives AND property protected. one has much more property to protect. (and as michael moore points out, its usually the poor man that does the fighting [and life losing])

a rich person such as bill gates should have to pay more for the government to defend their $50+ billion. he owns more and likewise should pay more for it to be protected. does it cost more for the police to protect a 1000 acre multimillionaire's house, or your 1/4th acre plop of land?

it was funny when the republicans were offered a modified estate tax plan (aka death tax) that exempt upto $100 million, but they still rejected it because they want 100% exempt. fortunately, ppl like billy are donating virtually 100% of their wealth to charity, hope he does find the cure for malaria

Ofcourse when someone logically things about your scenario they'd also realize that the rich would be paying more even if the rate was the same( ~flat).
Have you thought about the farming family's situation regarding the estate tax?

CkG

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.

Yeah, sure -whatever you say. :roll:
No, this isn't an emotional issue, but yes I do post with passion. The point is -this argument boils down to the fact that some people want others to pay more than the rest based on their emotions instead of logic. Again, the issue isn't an emotional one(incase you missed it once again).

Yeah, the double standards are getting bad but that isn't the issue here. The issue is those who want to use the gov't to redistribute money based on their feelings.
I don't give a rats ass if you are a hunter or claim to be a kinda Conservative or Conservative only for fiscal purposes but yet you are going to vote for kerry - sure...and I'm going to vote for Nader because I care about the Environment. You've just boughten into the spew of the left...how's it feel to be hooked through the gills? :roll:
I very much care about my freedom and that includes the freedom of deciding where the money I earn goes...unlike some who think they know better than I do about where the money should go. I think your BS about ultra-Conservative judges is tripe and this "balance" spew is laughable so in the view of this Conservative - you would be the fool.

CkG

For the last time, if you don't like it here don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. Your problem is that you only care about your freedom and to hell with everone else's. You act as if your shouldering the whole tax burden all by yourself and say the rest of us are wanting to chage it because of our "feelings".

LOL, I "feel" the current tax system isn't fair, and you "feel" it is. But your opinion isn't based on "feelings", ROFLMFAO!!!!!


BTW, I am a farmer and you have to be extremely big farmer before you need a bigger inheritance exemption then the one currently allowed. My neighbor's Dad was a big farmer and he died two years ago. My neighbor quit his job and hasn't worked since. He's living off the rent money from the farm (he didn't sell it, just rented it out). I think he needs a bigger exemption, don't you??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.

Yeah, sure -whatever you say. :roll:
No, this isn't an emotional issue, but yes I do post with passion. The point is -this argument boils down to the fact that some people want others to pay more than the rest based on their emotions instead of logic. Again, the issue isn't an emotional one(incase you missed it once again).

Yeah, the double standards are getting bad but that isn't the issue here. The issue is those who want to use the gov't to redistribute money based on their feelings.
I don't give a rats ass if you are a hunter or claim to be a kinda Conservative or Conservative only for fiscal purposes but yet you are going to vote for kerry - sure...and I'm going to vote for Nader because I care about the Environment. You've just boughten into the spew of the left...how's it feel to be hooked through the gills? :roll:
I very much care about my freedom and that includes the freedom of deciding where the money I earn goes...unlike some who think they know better than I do about where the money should go. I think your BS about ultra-Conservative judges is tripe and this "balance" spew is laughable so in the view of this Conservative - you would be the fool.

CkG

For the last time, if you don't like it here don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. Your problem is that you only care about your freedom and to hell with everone else's. You act as if your shouldering the whole tax burden all by yourself and say the rest of us are wanting to chage it because of our "feelings".

LOL, I "feel" the current tax system isn't fair, and you "feel" it is. But your opinion isn't based on "feelings", ROFLMFAO!!!!!


BTW, I am a farmer and you have to be extremely big farmer before you need a bigger inheritance exemption then the one currently allowed. My neighbor's Dad died two years ago and he quit his job and hasn't worked since. He's living off the rent money from the farm. I think he needs a bigger exemption, don't you??

Ah yes, the old "leave" BS, ofcourse I prefer to voice my opinion and work to change things but thanks for reminding me of that option:roll:. No, I care about American's freedom, and that includes their freedom of chosing how they provision their earnings. Nope, still wrong - I know I don't shoulder the whole tax-burden nor will I ever, but the point here is that one side is trying to base tax policy based on their arbitrary feelings. Fiscal policy isn't about emotion - it's about funding our gov't to do the things it is charged with doing.
I'm not sure what you are LOLing about - do you really not understand the issue here, or are you purposely trying to be obtuse?

Sure, not every farmer will be affected by the estate tax but I know some who would and have been. They aren't gigantic operations either. When you own many acres and the equipment to farm it - it doesn't take long for you to hit that number. Hell, being from South Dakota you should understand this. How many acres does a normal operation have? 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.

CkG

 

[1EZduzit]

Sorry about the "leaving" thing. It's just that it's so much fun to push your buttons that I couldn't resist it.

If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars? LOL!!

Since you asked, the average farm in my area is around 3000 acres and then they rent another 2 or 3000 acres. My neighbor 's farm (we both live in town) is about 100 miles from my farm and I'd say the average operation there is 1500 acers and they rent another 1500. They have almost all cropland while in my country it is about 50% grass and 50% cropland.

My neighbors Dad owned over 3000 acres and it probably rents out for $60 or $70 per acre. He was an only child, so he lives very well for not working. Most of the people I know who come from big operations just divide it up amongst the kids and rent it out when the parents die. Farming is just too many hours for most people. Everybody wants their week-ends and holidays off these days. I have hardly any neighbors left in the area where my farm is. One guy is strictly cattle and he is well over 80 years old, another is close to 70. There is one father/son operation and everything else is operated by the corporate farms. Most (but not all) are family corporations, but everything that comes up for sale or rent they snap up. I sure don't understand why you would worry about their ineritance tax breaks. They have plenty of money for everything else. Most of them were all broke in the bust of the early 80's, but they got write downs from the banks and special treatment from the goverment that kept them in business. Kinda like how we bailed out Chrysler and New York City. Now when it's time to pay some taxes they are the ones crying "foul" the loudest. LOL

In another 20 years or so it will be all corporate farming. The big grain companies and food processors will buy it up and do some "vertical intergration" where they control all aspects from planting/raising the product to selling the product in the grocery store. Once that happens the days of "cheap" food will be over.

We used to have a packing plant in this town, but Smithfeild Foods bought it about 7 1/2 years ago for several million dollars and then closed the door and it hasn't ran since. The town lost (by far) it's biggest employer and all the producers had to start hauling to the nearest plant 120 miles away, which just happened to be owned by Smithfield. A simple case of buying the competition out just to beat down the prices and you wonder why I think we need some "balance"? This town still hasn't recovered from that.

Everything is stacked in the favor of big business these days. I could go on and on, but nothing I say will convince you that change is needed. You have your opinion and I don't believe I can change it. Perhaps I can change somebody elses opinion who reads this, but not yours.

 

[ReiAyanami]

i dont know of any billionaire's that live in a mere 1/4th acre, but for argument's sake, they're still paying for the government to defend their $50 billion because $50 billion is still property (owned by the billionaire)

whether it sits in a bank (then the government is defending the bank) or if all that bling is in the form of MSFT stock in which case the government protects microsoft's existence and its thousand-acre campus in Redmond, WA

 

[ReiAyanami]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ofcourse when someone logically things about your scenario they'd also realize that the rich would be paying more even if the rate was the same( ~flat).
Have you thought about the farming family's situation regarding the estate tax?

CkG

income tax is not the only tax that exists.
you're forgetting the existence of sales tax, gas tax, property taxes, car tax all of which are paid by the middle class majority and regressively on the poor.

 

[imported_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.

 

[1EZduzit]

Well put tss4.

 

[Stunt]

yep, the poor who recieve tax cuts stimulate the economy, not the rich. The poor buy more consumer items, rich invest more into savings.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Sorry about the "leaving" thing. It's just that it's so much fun to push your buttons that I couldn't resist it.

Pushing my buttons? Puhleeze...I think you give yourself too much credit for your amateur replies.

If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars? LOL!!

If you'd pay attention, I have on multiple occasions ranted about the excessive gov't spending and waste. But your characterization of the deficit is dishonest at best. The deficit didn't start with Bush...but I'm sure you know that but still thought you'd slip that in....

Since you asked, the average farm in my area is around 3000 acres and then they rent another 2 or 3000 acres. My neighbor 's farm (we both live in town) is about 100 miles from my farm and I'd say the average operation there is 1500 acers and they rent another 1500. They have almost all cropland while in my country it is about 50% grass and 50% cropland.

My neighbors Dad owned over 3000 acres and it probably rents out for $60 or $70 per acre. He was an only child, so he lives very well for not working. Most of the people I know who come from big operations just divide it up amongst the kids and rent it out when the parents die. Farming is just too many hours for most people. Everybody wants their week-ends and holidays off these days. I have hardly any neighbors left in the area where my farm is. One guy is strictly cattle and he is well over 80 years old, another is close to 70. There is one father/son operation and everything else is operated by the corporate farms. Most (but not all) are family corporations, but everything that comes up for sale or rent they snap up. I sure don't understand why you would worry about their ineritance tax breaks. They have plenty of money for everything else. Most of them were all broke in the bust of the early 80's, but they got write downs from the banks and special treatment from the goverment that kept them in business. Kinda like how we bailed out Chrysler and New York City. Now when it's time to pay some taxes they are the ones crying "foul" the loudest. LOL

I didn't bring it up, I made a comment about someones statement about estate tax.

In another 20 years or so it will be all corporate farming. The big grain companies and food processors will buy it up and do some "vertical intergration" where they control all aspects from planting/raising the product to selling the product in the grocery store. Once that happens the days of "cheap" food will be over.

We used to have a packing plant in this town, but Smithfeild Foods bought it about 7 1/2 years ago for several million dollars and then closed the door and it hasn't ran since. The town lost (by far) it's biggest employer and all the producers had to start hauling to the nearest plant 120 miles away, which just happened to be owned by Smithfield. A simple case of buying the competition out just to beat down the prices and you wonder why I think we need some "balance"? This town still hasn't recovered from that.

Everything is stacked in the favor of big business these days. I could go on and on, but nothing I say will convince you that change is needed. You have your opinion and I don't believe I can change it. Perhaps I can change somebody elses opinion who reads this, but not yours.

"change"? What exactly do you think needs to be changed? You want to punish the businesses that employ people? You think that will "change" things? Come on...out with it instead of just whining and bitching. What exactly do you think will "change" the fact that corporations grow, consolidate, and <gasp> compete? What is this magic "change" you speak of? Pfffttt- stacked in the favor of big business...:roll: Do you have any clue how many small businesses there are? Do you also know that they make up most of our exporters? Do you not also understand that the tax-cuts helped small business owners?(oh wait...they are probably "rich" :roll: )

Anyway, you can continue to hate and blame the rich if you want I guess.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
yep, the poor who recieve tax cuts stimulate the economy, not the rich. The poor buy more consumer items, rich invest more into savings.

ANd investments drive the economy. As long as the wealthy are not stuffing their tax cuts under a matress the money is being used in the economy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ofcourse when someone logically things about your scenario they'd also realize that the rich would be paying more even if the rate was the same( ~flat).
Have you thought about the farming family's situation regarding the estate tax?

CkG

income tax is not the only tax that exists.
you're forgetting the existence of sales tax, gas tax, property taxes, car tax all of which are paid by the middle class majority and regressively on the poor.

I didn't say it was, but that's what we tax and divide people by in this discussion about "rich" and "poor" - no? However I did discuss some other alternatives to this current labor tax.
I'd like someone(since my other questions have been ignored) to attempt to explain the meaning of "progressive" and "regressive" and the reasoning behind labeling them as such. This should be interesting to hear. I'll be waiting for a logical response instead of one that uses emotion or arbitrary feelings.

CkG