POLL: How would you rather be taxed?

[Michael]

"we had before FDR where a select few robber barrons contolling everything, very low wages, non exsistant middle class and child labor"

That's a false statement. A few "robber barons" did not control everything. Wages were not "low". Therre was a "middle class". Tyhe definition of child and child labour has changed over the ages. When the main industry was farming, children laboured (and labour on farms today). The early industrial age had a resurgence of "child labour". As society became richer, there was no longer a need for that labour pool and the "exploitation" ended.

The R&D tax credits are/were available for every company. Government grants and tax credits are different animals. Your example was a grant, not a tax credit. Plus you whined that a company that invested in professionals whose job was to ensure that grants were dealt with properly received the grant. All things being equal, a large comapny is lower irsk and more attractive for that type of investment, just like they are for almost all business arrangements.

Michael (ps - I don't care that much about Mike/Michael, but I do go by Michael and always have)

 

[danzig]

Let's put all the combined income/ss/tariff/property/etc. taxes and roll them up to a sales tax - then A LOT of people would finally take notice that we are being financially raped and raise h*ll about it . I can see some fartknocker now at Wal Mart buying a $10.00 item then getting hit with a $6 or $7 sales tax

 

[Rob9874]

This has been a very interesting thread. I hope it continues. First of all, I want to commend PoW for retracting his/her harsh responds towards me. I expected much worse. However, I have to agree with some of the other responses, though not as harshly. I believe one cannot go through life as a victim, and merely complain about how the system sucks. I agree that you shouldn't have to do something against your morals for money. But you should be willing to do things you don't want to do, or disagree with (as long as it doesn't compromise your morals). My father taught me a lesson early in life: sometimes you're going to have to do things you don't want to. Again, I don't mean steal or cheat. But some people would rather accept welfare, than have to put on a suit and be at work everyday, and obey a boss. Welcome to the real world! Sure, no one likes the conformity of the workforce, but it's what you have to do as a responsible adult to provide for your family.

I don't think a man's worth is measured by his salary (otherwise, I'd be pretty worthless), but I also don't think you are measured by how much you sacrifice for others. Altruism is great, if someone so chooses. But to say a man is a loser merely because he hasn't chosen to sacrifice himself for others, is absurd. I would recommend reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand. Rand poses some ideas that most people (including myself) would cringe at, upon first hearing. But the more I read, the more she makes sense. She states that the ultimate moral value, for each individual, is his or her own well-being. The exact definition of selfishness is "concern for one's own interests." There's nothing wrong with that. However, society has associated selfishness as "disregard for the well-being of others," which isn't the case. It's just that you should NEVER sacrifice yourself for the well-being of others. Maslow's hierarchy of needs even states that one must complete his own needs, before he can successfully tend to the needs of others.

What this means is that I don't see it virtuous for someone to stifle his own success, and brag about all he's done for others. One thought that I completely disagreed with when I first heard it, was that Bill Gates is as much of a philanthropist as Mother Theresa. This is obviously wrong, since Mother Theresa had nothing for herself, while Gates is a fat cat. But wait! Why do we link self-sacrifice with philanthropy? Why hasn't the good Gates has done with his money count for anything? Because he profits as well? That's absurd. What's wrong with win-win? I do not discount Mother Theresa's life at all. All I'm saying, is why do we praise people who have done less and have less, than those who have done more yet have more in the end? The idea that the widow's mite is more altruistic than a million dollar donation from a billionaire, is wrong. I heard people on this board discounting Gates' $X billion dollar donation to some charity, because he stood to gain a nice tax write-off. So what? What does that take away from the billions he gave away?

So my point in this rambling is that we shouldn't put someone down for striving for success. In fact, we should commend them! And if that includes playing along with life's silly rules (as long as they fall within your moral code) to acheive that success, so what? You own your happiness. Who is going to look out for your success and well-being, if not yourself? The "rich" and "greedy" that everyone is putting down made this country as successful as it is today. If it weren't for rich people, you wouldn't have a job. Somewhere along the line, we assumed that for someone to gain, someone else has to lose. Why can't we all be greedy, and everyone succeeds? Lazarus Long once said, "The greatest productive force is human selfishness."