is this one of the tenets of liberalism?

[schneiderguy]

We're back to you not understanding democracy.

Democracy doesn't guarantee 'good policy'. It's no better than the voters - and given various corruptions of things like people with a lot of money, not always as good.

What it DOES do is to recognize that any OTHER system is worse - kings, czars, mullahs, dictators, and so on - as bad as the 'people' ruling can be sometimes, it's better.

What does that have to do with anything I'm saying?

You can have a democracy without having a ridiculously large government.

Not a dollar of our deficit now is caused by Social Security or Medicare, but that's where they are looking first for reducing the deficit for worse spending.

lol. They're almost half of our entire budget. You could argue that the entire deficit is caused by the existence of Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

While tossing strawmen on the bonfire, is it a tenet of conservatism that the middle class should pay taxes for things like copyright enforcement cops that only benefit big corporations and the rich?

Or maybe, just maybe, do some of the taxes that the well-off pay go towards government functions that benefit them more than the poor and middle class?

Well played sir, well played.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

What does that have to do with anything I'm saying?

You can have a democracy without having a ridiculously large government.



lol. They're almost half of our entire budget. You could argue that the entire deficit is caused by the existence of Social Security and Medicare.

Actually you can't, because of the way they were set up.

 

[dmcowen674]

is this one of the tenets of liberalism?

there is no reason any individual should amass X amount of money/wealth (where X is an arbitrarily high amount in the minds of a liberal).
therefore we must tax him higher and redistribute it to those that are in need.

correct me if i'm wrong with my assumption of a liberal belief, but that's the gist i get from reading select posts on ATPN.

Wow

What a rich whiny spoiled brat.

You hate it here so much why do you stay?

Hopefully you are reaching a point you will pack up and leave very soon. :thumbsup:

 

[gingermeggs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g&feature=relmfu

 

[WelshBloke]

ITT lots of people who don't know what Liberalism is, particularly with respect to tax.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The only reason *they know* to say anything against concentrated wealth is jealousy - which happens to violate one of the ten commandments, to boot.

maybe it's because i'm more center right, so i may be wrong about this, but jealousy is not the counter argument against concentrated wealth.

the argument is that one who has worked hard (legally) for his money should not have his money forcibly taken from him in the form of taxes.
even those who are not ultra rich and will likely never be, will still defend this on principal alone.
jealousy is not the reason.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Wow

What a rich whiny spoiled brat.

You hate it here so much why do you stay?

Hopefully you are reaching a point you will pack up and leave very soon. :thumbsup:

no one here takes you seriously. NO ONE.
you are like the senile old man in the nursing home that yells randomly to himself in the corner. doesn't even garner a look from the aids.

 

[Craig234]

maybe it's because i'm more center right, so i may be wrong about this, but jealousy is not the counter argument against concentrated wealth.

the argument is that one who has worked hard (legally) for his money should not have his money forcibly taken from him in the form of taxes.
even those who are not ultra rich and will likely never be, will still defend this on principal alone.
jealousy is not the reason.

I think you confused what I was saying. I'm saying that people who want to reduce the level of inequality when it's very high are accused of jealousy as the reason.

So someone says 'look at all the harm that having 1% have more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans causes, let's fix that shifting taxation for more equality', nothing to do with jealousy, many on the right say 'you're jealous' as their 'argument' against that policy, attacking the liberals.

Why is it that practically every right-winger who discusses excessive wealth uses the phrase about the rich, 'worked hard for it'? It's not just that they're often wrong - the Walton Children are the richest family in America, and they didn't 'work hard' for it - but even if they did, it's got nothing to do with the issue. CEOs used to make 25 times the workers' income; say they worked hard for it. They get a lot more. Not one liberal I've seen has an issue with that. When not one 'hard work' issue, but only 'gaming the system', causes that to change to CEOs making 400 times the workers' salaries - and then the CEOs plow that money back into right-wing political organizations that are out to push the CEOs' interests and harm the public's interests - which is what we've seen as wealth has so radically shifted to the few at the top while most get none of the economy's growth which they're 'working hard' to create the wealth - that's a lot of economic injustice that has nothing to do with the CEO 'working hard'.

Many rich are great contributors to our wealth, and they deserve compensation for that. They don't deserve to turn America into a plutocracy and screw most Americans for it.

On the pendulum, one side does have the people saying 'hey, they've got a lot, let's tax the instead of us'. That's pretty much never happened to any excess in the US - the most it's happened is having a progressive income tax structure, which is perfectly fair to ask to make society function well. On the other side is when the rich are shifting more and more taxes onto the public while they skyrocket in wealth without any claim to why it's 'fair', but simply 'because they can', and the aristocracy never gives up power willingly.

That's where we are now.

Look at what you wrote. You just argued against *all income taxes*. That's a ridiculously impractical argument - especially without an alternative to pay the bills.

You might not have meant to say that, but you did, which alone says something too - that the rhetoric is overheated and irrational with this 'defend the rich' mania.

 

[Rainsford]

maybe it's because i'm more center right, so i may be wrong about this, but jealousy is not the counter argument against concentrated wealth.

the argument is that one who has worked hard (legally) for his money should not have his money forcibly taken from him in the form of taxes.
even those who are not ultra rich and will likely never be, will still defend this on principal alone.
jealousy is not the reason.

The point Craig was making is that YOU see this as a moral debate, and you can't imagine that liberals don't see the debate the same way, just from the other side. You view taxation (especially of the rich, for some reason) as forcibly taking hard earned money in a way that's basically theft. In your mind, liberals could only support that if they liked thievery and they wanted to especially punish the rich for their success.

But here's the factor you're missing...that's not how liberals view taxes, at all. It's not about moral debate, or drawing principled lines in the sand. It's not about punishing the rich or rewarding the lazy, or any of that other bullcrap. The fact is that government costs money, no matter how much or how little of it we have, no matter what it does, and liberals believe that taxes are how we pay for it. That's it. Taxes aren't the end, just the means. Even progressive taxation is a matter of practicality, as richer folks simply have more disposable income than poorer folks. You could try to squeeze more taxes out of the poor to satisfy your idea of fairness, but it doesn't really seem like they have enough money to make that a practical way for the system to work.

To this liberal at least, the tax debate's status on the right as a battlefield of ideology borders on the ridiculous.

 

[Craig234]

To this liberal at least, the tax debate's status on the right as a battlefield of ideology borders on the ridiculous.

Good to see you Rainsford, haven't seen you post lately.

Nice points. But isn't that like saying the KKK borders on being racist?

 

[Rainsford]

Good to see you Rainsford, haven't seen you post lately.

Yeah, my posting here has kinda been sporadic. Harder than it used to be to summon up the energy to try to debate politics

But isn't that like saying the KKK borders on being racist?

It's more just confusing, to be honest. I'm not super fond of paying taxes or anything, but STARTING the discussion with tax policy, and treating it with all the seriousness and gravity of William Wallace fighting the English, just seems weird to me.

 

[Craig234]

It's more just confusing, to be honest. I'm not super fond of paying taxes or anything, but STARTING the discussion with tax policy, and treating it with all the seriousness and gravity of William Wallace fighting the English, just seems weird to me.

I think it's largely just the effects of propaganda, the same way that any target can be turned into the object of rage - blacks, illegals, communists, Muslims, bureaucrats etc.

Once people are persuade that 'evil, selfish people' are out to 'screw them' by 'taking their money by force' to misuse it, any rational idea of how society works is irrelevant.

Many people just love to be worked into a rage - the business model of talk radio.

I don't know of any antidote for the demagogues who do this, really. It's sort of like a cult 'deprogramming' issue, really.

For example, I've seen very few people 'cured' of racism. I've seen societies largely cured by breaking the cycle and not indoctrinating young people, but few who changed.

Unfortunately, for these victims of propaganda, their war against taxes is as real to them it seems as a war against real oppression.

They get led around by the nose by interested parties whose agenda is simply to shift wealth to themselves and away from these ignorant people.

If the left had an equal budget to 'educate' people with the truth and counter the propaganda, it'd help, but they don't, and 'the big lie' applies.

And these people hear 1,000 times 'you shouldn't raise taxes on the job creators' and are led to absolutely hate the liberals who want to destroy America, raising taxes on the rich.

There is another attitude people can have - 'I'm proud to pay my taxes, recognizing I'm doing my part in what makes our society work so well and fuels our democracy'.

But there are no big bucks pushing that attitude.

To the extent our democracy is corrupted and people feel their taxes are wasted, it undermines that attitude. But it's usually the same people pushing the corruption and the 'anti-tax ideology'.

People with this attitude can still passionately oppose tax policies - want lower rates, different spending priorities - but that's not the 'anti-tax' rabid ideology.

I think part of it is simply people creating political support by pandering to voters, convincing them 'you are overtaxed by thieves, so vote for us and not them', while they're the real thieves.

Save234

 

[sandorski]

The Deficit, bridges collapsing, Roads/Highways, and other things that are failing due to lack of Funding(not always), all indicate that Taxes are already too Low. How to raise Taxes is where the argument should be, not whether to raise them.

One of the better ways would be a National Sales Tax. These usually hurt the Economy for a short period, but once the Consumer adjusts they are a great source of Revenue that can be applied towards, first the Deficit, then the Debt. Once the Debt is being paid down, decreasing the Sales Tax meets little to no resistance.

The only Taxes that should be currently debated regarding Cuts are Corporate/Business Taxes. Income Taxes on the "Wealthy" shouldn't even enter that discussion and should be raised as All people are bearing the burden of the current fiscal mess.

 

[Craig234]

The Deficit, bridges collapsing, Roads/Highways, and other things that are failing due to lack of Funding(not always), all indicate that Taxes are already too Low. How to raise Taxes is where the argument should be, not whether to raise them.

One of the better ways would be a National Sales Tax. These usually hurt the Economy for a short period, but once the Consumer adjusts they are a great source of Revenue that can be applied towards, first the Deficit, then the Debt. Once the Debt is being paid down, decreasing the Sales Tax meets little to no resistance.

The only Taxes that should be currently debated regarding Cuts are Corporate/Business Taxes. Income Taxes on the "Wealthy" shouldn't even enter that discussion and should be raised as All people are bearing the burden of the current fiscal mess.

I think using a sales tax much is regressive and transfers too much of the tax burden off the rich.

If you have billions, you can buy yourself lamborghinis and spend less than 1% of your income on taxable items, while is mostly goes untaxed into investments.

If you are not, you can have basics like cable tv and internet and similar and spend a lot of your income on taxable things. I'd prefer a 'wealth tax' to a 'sales tax'.

 

[sandorski]

I think using a sales tax much is regressive and transfers too much of the tax burden off the rich.

If you have billions, you can buy yourself lamborghinis and spend less than 1% of your income on taxable items, while is mostly goes untaxed into investments.

If you are not, you can have basics like cable tv and internet and similar and spend a lot of your income on taxable things. I'd prefer a 'wealth tax' to a 'sales tax'.

Income Taxes on the Wealthy definitely need to go up. At the very least all sources of Income need to be Taxed the same. Despite that, Income Taxes can not close the gap between the budgetary shortfalls and what is needed.

The advantages are that there are no exceptions, loopholes, or avoidance of these types of Taxes, on New Items anyway. You can give Rebates back to those on Low Incomes to offset the added burden.

 

[Robor]

What they have at their disposal will never be enough

Sources of income will be taxed lower until they reach parity with that reality. Whether it be at 25%, 10%, or 1% of all incomes, their appetite will not be sated until all work in servitude for them.

Fixed.

 

[fskimospy]

People on this board have a really bizarre idea of what liberalism is.

 

[Braznor]

Democracy is always about one people getting fucked for the good of another group,

Taxpayers vs leechers, Citizens against illegals, elite vs middle class, management vs union etc.

It is always the same story.

 

[Craig234]

People on this board have a really bizarre idea of what liberalism is.

Remember what I've said:

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[Nebor]

Remember what I've said:

No one remembers what you say.

 

[yllus]

Yup, once someone makes over $474,326.03 per year, that person must disgorge the overage, or else be summarily executed.

That was in the handbook I was given as well.

 

[Arkaign]

One of the dumber things that some of my fellow conservatives like to complain about is how so many Americans don't pay any taxes. Which is a problem for several reasons :

(1)- This is only true relating to Federal Income Tax, which people earning a low enough figure effectively pay zero of.

(2)- Those same poor people still pay SS, Sales Tax, tax on basically everything else they have to pay for to get by.

Supporters of a flat tax want to shift that burden more heavily on the poor. But you can't get blood from a stone, I think as the middle class disappears into the ether (thanks corporate outsourcing of tech and mfg, you're awesome!), more and more people are just living paycheck to paycheck, even with multiple incomes in a household and no exhorbitant spending. Taxing more from these people will just lower sales of things that they have to spend money on.

That's the big difference. For example, the brainwashed right recently and currently are going apeshit over the idea of a tax hike on folks making more than 250k. But really, what's the outcome for an earner making 240k vs. 260k? The % difference is tiny, and the person earning 260k indeed still will clear easily more annually than the person making 240k even after the tax hike. The idea that taxing these people more is going to cause them any real trouble is laughable. Someone making $24k a year is probably spending almost every dime they make back into the economic system just to keep a roof over their heads and gas in their tank so they make it to work and back. Someone making 250k+, they probably re-invest a significantly lower percentage of that income back into the economy on a direct basis.

I think that a combination of higher progressive taxes after a certain point (but not to exceed an untenably stupid percentage) is a good idea. I also think that a lot of government spending is excessive and wasteful, and that goes hand in hand with this special breed of corporatism that exhibits itself in endless special interest group shenanigans and PAC $ bribing of our national officials. It doesn't really help that most of our regulatory agencies are staffed through a revolving door with the top people working in the very areas that the agencies are supposed to be policing. It's like putting a cat door on the henhouse for the fox.

 

[Engineer]

(1)- This is only true relating to Federal Income Tax, which people earning a low enough figure effectively pay zero of.

(2)- Those same poor people still pay SS, Sales Tax, tax on basically everything else they have to pay for to get by.

That may be true for some but the EIC on a few people actually sends them into negative territory in the form of taxes (at least at the complete federal level - Income, SS and Medicare). I would not mind to see the EIC removed as well as other requirements on welfare in general. Too many people playing the system (i.e. people who intentially work less to get EIC because they make more than simply working - yes, I've seen people do just this).