-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Tell me again...why would you vote for Bush over Kerry?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
EXman
Lifer
Disproven by whom? Not the liberal media... it be nice if they just do their job and follow the paper trail. Also in a book authorized by Kerry he has talked about his killing. It's not a big deal I might have done it too but I wouldn't call it heroric.
If you think Kerry is a Hero like McCain then your smoking something.
umbrella39
Lifer
I never compared the two and yes, I am smoking something 😉 I was however, unaware that there were different degree's of herodom (word?). McCain obviously had to endure much, much more than Kerry but I would wager than even the two of them put themselves on a level playing field when it comes to patriotism and valor. They both served their country honorably and made it home alive. They are both heros.
It's great that you have the data - which is absolutely and sadly true, but you do not offer an explanation as to why those numbers are the way they are and how to mediate them.
Once upon a time, before 1960s, a person who needed help got it by appealing to a local charity (such as the Salvation Army) or to the town government. The individual had to explain how he got into trouble and how he intended to work his way out of it. He was monitored closely to assure he was telling the truth and that he stuck to his plan to get on his feet. Federal welfare, however, requires nothing more ambitious, energetic, or embarrassing than filling out a form. In the former days, you knew you had to work for what you got, today you have to be willing to undertake the arduous task of walking to your mail box once a month and open your check.
The worst effect is that these welfare programs seperate acts from consequences. They teach people to be careless. Since you don't have to pay for your own mistakes, you have no reason to exercise caution, restraint, or forethought. Whatever goes wrong, the government will take care of you.
Depersonalized welfare was less successful in rescuing people from their misfortunes. Fewer lives were rehabilitated. And many people were subverted as welfare become an opportunity, rather than a source of stigma. It's no wonder why welfare costs are increasing; they're perpetuating the lifestyle that they are specifically designed to cure. So it is no surprise that Americans have less than they did, and why there is a problem. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will only feed the machine that keeps the poor poor while at the same time taking away from others... a lose-lose scenerio.
If the trend continues by 2060 Social Security and Medicare will account for 71% of the Federal budget. And it's not that far fetched since the past 30+ years the costs have been increasing, not decreasing, and they have been increasing exponenetially. Government programs don't work, they only cause bureaucrats to provide 'reforms' which simply lead to more costs/problems.
Here's why I plan on voting for Bush over Kerry:
(this is cut 'n' pasted from an email I sent a friend of mine - I'll try to go through and capitalize things, but I may miss a few, so just bear with me.)
(Quotes are from the Kerry/Edwards website)
Economics-wise:
"Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan." That's a lot of tax-cutting. Where does Kerry plan on getting the money to pay for his new programs if he's cutting taxes so much?
Kerry will "Eliminate incentives to take American jobs overseas." Didn't Kerry vote for NAFTA? Heck - how's he going to keep India from paying people $2.50 an hour? Ahhh - maybe he's going to lower the minimum wage here. In that case, maybe I *would* support him. Wait - he's going to "Raise the minimum wage to $7." The way I see it, anybody who has as part of his (or her) platform a minimum raise increase either (a) needs to admit that they're ignoring other factors to pander to the poor vote
(don't they usually vote democrat anyway?) or (b) shows that they know less about economics than they think they do.
How will Kerry's health care presentation affect me? Let's see - he plans to "cut family premiums by up to $1,000." I'm not a family. Who gets to pay for that negative delta in premiums? Me.
"The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition." How is he going to explain this to the pharmacuetical companies that put in a lot of R&D dollars to develop a drugs that were produced by other companies in a foreign company that circumvented their patents?
Who's paying for insurance for the newly-insured "additional 27 million Americans"?
"Make America Energy Independent Of Middle East Oil" - yet Kerry was against drilling in the ANWR.
BTW, he's for spending a lot of money on energy programs as well. Where's this money coming from?
"John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties." Isn't there some sort of phrase about pie and sky? Security depends on information. National security, by definition, requires the submission of certain rights. When you
have people that think it is a violation of their civil rights to have to show an ID to board a plane, how are you expected to secure flights?
"Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job." We've seen how Kerry supports funding the military.
"They will also ensure that No Child Left Behind works for schools, states, and teachers by rewarding those who meet higher standards and rewarding schools that turn around and improve. " That's nice - whose program is NCLB?
"The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children." Who is
paying for this?
They will "offer aid to states that keep tuitions down." Is that aid going to cover things like the increase of the minimum wage?
"John Kerry and John Edwards will wire every corner of America and provide first responders with a secure broadband network by 2006." What??!!!! Who is paying for that?
I figured it out - all of these new jobs he's creating are going to be either more goverment jobs, or gov't contract. Great.
In summation, my primary goal is to vote with my wallet. All that I see coming from Kerry is ways to empty it.
(this is cut 'n' pasted from an email I sent a friend of mine - I'll try to go through and capitalize things, but I may miss a few, so just bear with me.)
(Quotes are from the Kerry/Edwards website)
Economics-wise:
"Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan." That's a lot of tax-cutting. Where does Kerry plan on getting the money to pay for his new programs if he's cutting taxes so much?
Kerry will "Eliminate incentives to take American jobs overseas." Didn't Kerry vote for NAFTA? Heck - how's he going to keep India from paying people $2.50 an hour? Ahhh - maybe he's going to lower the minimum wage here. In that case, maybe I *would* support him. Wait - he's going to "Raise the minimum wage to $7." The way I see it, anybody who has as part of his (or her) platform a minimum raise increase either (a) needs to admit that they're ignoring other factors to pander to the poor vote
(don't they usually vote democrat anyway?) or (b) shows that they know less about economics than they think they do.
How will Kerry's health care presentation affect me? Let's see - he plans to "cut family premiums by up to $1,000." I'm not a family. Who gets to pay for that negative delta in premiums? Me.
"The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition." How is he going to explain this to the pharmacuetical companies that put in a lot of R&D dollars to develop a drugs that were produced by other companies in a foreign company that circumvented their patents?
Who's paying for insurance for the newly-insured "additional 27 million Americans"?
"Make America Energy Independent Of Middle East Oil" - yet Kerry was against drilling in the ANWR.
BTW, he's for spending a lot of money on energy programs as well. Where's this money coming from?
"John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties." Isn't there some sort of phrase about pie and sky? Security depends on information. National security, by definition, requires the submission of certain rights. When you
have people that think it is a violation of their civil rights to have to show an ID to board a plane, how are you expected to secure flights?
"Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job." We've seen how Kerry supports funding the military.
"They will also ensure that No Child Left Behind works for schools, states, and teachers by rewarding those who meet higher standards and rewarding schools that turn around and improve. " That's nice - whose program is NCLB?
"The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children." Who is
paying for this?
They will "offer aid to states that keep tuitions down." Is that aid going to cover things like the increase of the minimum wage?
"John Kerry and John Edwards will wire every corner of America and provide first responders with a secure broadband network by 2006." What??!!!! Who is paying for that?
I figured it out - all of these new jobs he's creating are going to be either more goverment jobs, or gov't contract. Great.
In summation, my primary goal is to vote with my wallet. All that I see coming from Kerry is ways to empty it.
Imagine, if you will, what woudl happen if the welfare disappeared. Those working at Walmart or Mcdonalds would not be able to afford to work their since their wages aren't subsidized, and would be forced to find other jobs. Then Walmart/McDonalds would lose workers, and would have to increase wages to keep the workers. Problem solved, naturally, via capitalism.
That is not to say that no one deserves welfare. The welfare system that used to be in place was much more efficient than the current one, since the current system acts to entice people to get welfare benefits than the encourage people to get off of welfare.
First of all, I'm not a republican nor am I a proponant of whiners. Secondly, I don't care if republicans cry themselves to sleep when their stock investments drops like a ton of bricks. To me this isn't a partisan issue, it's a question of capitalism and individual rights. Each person has the right to their own property. My problem is when taxes are increased to fund programs which continually run up taxes even more in the name of 'reforms' and do not solve the social ills they intend to cure: medicare, social security, war on drugs, etc. Thirdly, I don't understand what one person's wage has to do with another. I also don't understand what you mean by 'decent wage'. That's a very arbitrary term. The point is, every person in this country has a right to pursue happiness, not a right to happiness - that's a very big differnce. If you're not happy with your Walmart position and government benefits, then find another position. And if they can't, it doesn't somehoe make my money theirs or vice versa.
Now let me tell you a little story about myself. My parents and I were immigrants from the former Soviet Union, we came here in 1990 with $600 in our pockets (maximum allowed to be taken for immigrants at that time) and no knowledge of English. We were on government programs social security, foodstamps, etc until my parents got on their feet and are now making much more than the average american family. And not just us, all of our close friends and relatives were in the same situation when they got here and are now in same prosperous situation my parents are in. Yes, the government programs helped us, and now my parents give in taxes Much more than they consumed while on the programs. If that was the case with even a quarter of people on these programs, then it would almost eliminate costs in these social programs. But that is not the case. With introduction of these programs, like a program that was established to provide 1 million kids with free lunches in school for assistance to needy families, it ended up providing 6 million kids with free lunch because other people looked to qualify for that 'give away' and, naturally, did. Same thing applies to other welfare programs. If you told most of the people on welfare now that their welfare payments would run out in 8 months, I guarentee most of them would try to get better jobs etc, which is not the case now.... in many cases welfare acts to promote low income lifestyles rather than compell people to improve their lives.
As for me currently, I am a full time student. I interned this summer in NYC for free (0 pay). Well not free, actually I paid to work - it costs $20 a day in travel on the train plus some gas money to get to the train station. Now, I PAID to work. I decided to do that, it was my decision, no one else's. Likewise, I do not expect you, who undoubtedly makes more than negative $20 a day, to pay for me working for free, or anyone else for that matter.
The point still stands. Medicare doesn't work and should be removed.
GI Bill i'm not familiar with so I won't address it until I read up on it. As for the New Deal, contrary to what you're saying and what I have been bombarded in high school and college by every history teacher that the New Deal brought us out of recession and was a great economic succes - it was just the opposite. People like to say that FDR brought us out of the recession but fail to mention that in 1939 (after the new deal) unemployment was worse than in 1931 (during depression). No to mention that the recession in 1921 was potentially far more dangerous than the 1929 recession, b/c the 1921 recesion came after a war and consdierable inflation. But b/c hte government stayed out of it, the 1921 recesion lasted only 18 months. I can provide more detailed explanations on this if you'd like, the bottom line is the New Deal not only prolonged the depression, but it also caused negative repurcussions that we're seeing now, mostly with new programs and goverment intervention.
The space program...?? How has it worked? The space program has impeded progress beyond belief. All of their missions go waaaay over budget. As with the current space station. Moreover, when private contractors offer to send out satellites for communication companies for a cheap and efficient price, NASA underbids them and gets teh contract, but the actual costs are MUCH higher than their competition... NASA can just function at a loss b/c the rest of the money comes out of our pockets. Success? How? B/c it inhibits progress? B/c it stifles competition? B/c of their out of control costs that it ends up funding by taking money from the tax payers? Perhaps it's really poor mission success rate? The space program, much like the post office, is expensive and inefficient.... and moreover, unncessarily so.
Umm... no. I dont' pretend to be a 'know-it-all' - as I am not informed about the GI Bill and I did not pretend to be; I made that very well known in my post. Everything that I have brought up, I explained and backed up. I still stand behind the fact that while it is obvious to most people that things like medical costs are high, few, if any, will be able to point out why those costs are high and how to make them inexpensive.
Answer to your first question, if you take bush out of the equation, then there is no need to give reason to vote for Kerry, since he becomes the only candidate in the equation (ignoring RN of course) 🙂
Your 2nd question, did you watch the DNC? Kerry's did outline a lot of more specific steps / plans, the problem is of course a lot of our current problem can not 100% controlled or dictated by both candidates. People like to think that the president can single-handedly change the economic cycle, job recovery, job outsourcing, the insurgency in Iraq, Al-Qaeda terrorism. The truth is both candidates can give you a mind-blowing plan, but their plan will be dictated by situation not in their control. Just look at occupation/liberation of Iraq, how it doesn't turn out like what the bush's admin/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie dream about...
what both parties can control is how they could shape your views of situation to their advantage, ie by giving you news that you want to hear (half truth, conflicting stories), or by scaring you, etc
PS: has bush outline what he gonna do in his second term (if elected)? Seems like all he did was bashing Kerry and his record, or repeat propaganda, ie "America is safer" or "We're turning the corner" without actually telling us what he gonna do differently as peace president like he say he gonna be.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
Everyone is out to make maximum profit, which is by definition fair profit, but as it goes for return on investment, drugs arn't the best investment.
Maximizing profit is what leads to more venture capital which is what leads to more breakthroughs.
I?m aware of the situation and it sucks that Americans have to foot the bill, but if we don?t pay so much then less will be invested in drugs and thus fewer drugs will be created.
I?ll agree that we should limit advertisement to dr. targeted only, but it?s contrary to free-market principles and probably bad in the long run.
Hey, I was against NAFTA, it?s your Mr. Gore that passed it.
Causing investment capital into drugs to fall will only serve to reduce the number of drugs produced, and the best way to make sure less investment capital is put into any market is to cut it?s profitability.
many factors go into the rising cost of medical care, not the least of which is the cost of obtuse punitive damages against companies.
bankrupt to save your life isn?t an unfair proposition, if it means more lives are saved. Not afford it? I don?t know ware you live, but I?ve always gotten every medication I?ve ever needed? but I?m poor and can?t afford it
we also have the best, the amount of capital you put into anything will determine how much is supplied. Paying more for medical makes our medicine better.
I?m sorry, what Americans don?t get life saving treatment again?
seems to be heading? So your afraid of a boogie man off in the distance and insist that we destroy our medical system as they have in Britain and Canada?
I know I wouldn?t and I don?t know much of anyone who knows the facts of the situation that would make it illegal? you are aware that proper ceremonial disposal of a flag involves burning, right?
No matter, if enough of us wanted to make flag burning illegal we could pass an amendment, but that?s just silly.
My comments where about judicial activism, what the base wants and what the judiciary does are two different things when it comes to conservatives. We have moral fiber and won?t change the constitution at our whim in order to make it conform to our societal views.
I looked it up, and the top 20% have 45% of the wealth, botum 20% some 5.6%. so having the top 2% pay 40% of the taxes is a bit unfair, don?t you think? And if you did want to tax wealth why wouldn?t you be fore a flat tax and a sales tax?
People should only get for a job as much as the next guy who can take their place, why don?t you feel bad about all the unemployed you create and small business owners you drive under with a higher minimum wage?
I don?t want what?s best for me, like I said, I?m poor, my mom makes less than minimum wage *min wage is halved for waitresses* and my dad is disabled.
Fair would be to tax everyone an equal % of their money and then tax people for actually using their money to gain wealth with it. The alternative minimum tax and moving towards school and medical tax shelters is fair.
Why would you make it so that a man can?t work his life to do better for his children? Being able to clime the social latter so that the next generation can do better than you is what makes America great, stealing a man?s wealth so he can?t do that is as immoral any other theft.
The idea that you can eliminate the social latter is irrationally idealistic at best, a lie to keep poor people from climbing it at worst.
I?m a collage student and am taking 6 hours this summer semester, took 7 last summer semester, and spend time on this forum because It?s got the highest average intelligence of any open forum I?ve encountered? and I?ve been an AnanadTech/AMD fan boy sense the K6-3;
If your asking about why I don?t work? Well, thanks to America I don?t have to and thanks to the same America if I did work it would end up costing me more. I?ve got the skills to make $15 an hour*worth the work*, but I?ve also got the schedule to make 5.15 an hour.
I plan on working while working on my masters.
Thank you Sr.
I?m not sure I post all that much, but how hard is it to spout mindless rhetoric anyway?
It?s rare that I come across anyone who?s thinking any deeper than that, so rare that I?ll take as much time looking up numbers and thinking over what?s been said as I have with this post.
I used to post heavily in the off-topic when I was a regular in 99, p/n is much slower than OT is now... more like the old board.
No Sr. I?m not the sharpest. But in this case, I agree with you.
This was on Denis Miller ?98:
?Stock holders pulled a large percentage of their money out of the stock market today when they realized that most of the money was imaginary
man, wait until they hear about banks!?
I?m not for making the law system inaccessible to the common man, but I don?t think that punitive damages help much of anyone, if anything I like Ralph Nattier?s suggestion of a corporate death penalty.
to quote Karol Rove ?Regan proved that deficits don?t matter?
In fact deficit spending doesn?t cause inflation until the added money is spent at a speed that out paces real GDP growth.
I agree that the money supply shouldn?t be in the hands of those we directly elect, and that we certainly shouldn?t be deficit spending. But either way you cut it, spending by theft or spending by imagining up more money, you are adding wealth to the federal bureaucracy and reducing the value of the private sector, and reducing the value of money healed and decreasing the real amount of debt healed.
we?re trying to do that now, and that bottom 20% that works hard but isn?t the cream just won?t stay on their side of the border.
I live in a place that thrives on NAFTA, thrives on illegal immigrants, and who?s second larges city(120k)?s mayor ran and won on the slogan ?I?m a second generation American, just like you?.
some news:
3rd generation Americans, Hispanic or not, don't like illegal immigration.
puppet stopped letting us pull his strings and went to the Russians and French for help.
I guess we can only hope that the gambit will work, but I believe trying to spread American decadence is better than not doing anything at all
no, but that?s also a factor of refinery production, and we can?t just loot their oil?
many countries are westernizingnow, and at the time having the ruling class in power over the anti-Jew masses was a very prudent objective post WWII.
Got me their, I don?t think I can disagree.
Unfortunitly it?s not a state issue, ussc said that the state only has interest in intervening in the last trimester, before that no one has a right to intervene. If it where a state issue I?d feel much better, but it?s a federal issue, one that I?d elect to give up most of my other civil liberties to have changed.
And honestly, take my point of view for a second: millions of children are being murdered because the Supreme court says they can be legally.
Isn?t that something worth fighting to change, isn?t that something wroth dieing to change?
But respect for law is necessary to holding a country together. As it is the most important right, the right to life, is being abridged daily for many children.
tax as much as needed for it
fair share, as I said, is flat for every citizen, and then paying a tax on what wealth you consume with your dollars.
Choices on how abortion works would be fine, but the legislature?s hands are tied by judicial activism and that?s the opposite of democracy, that?s tyranny.
You said you?re a farmer, I take it you found your own investment capital to get the land and equipment you have, right? And are you fine with passing down half of your land to your children, the other half to uncle sam, and then he passing half of that to children, now a full 3/4ths in the government?s hands?
imported_tss4
Golden Member
Why do I always find myself at odds with you?
I got news for you we don't live in a pure democracy. Our fore fathers went out of their way to prevent that. Hence, checks and balances. This 'tyranny' of judicial review is clearly provided for in the constitution and has 'tyranically' imposed civil rights for women and blacks when the majority of the U.S. population was against it.
This is an interesting idea, but I have two problems with it. First, that website about the flat tax doesn't really explain how there would be the same amount of revenue as the current system. Secondly, I also still feel that first 20,000 of income should be tax free. The working poor need that break.
I got news for you we don't live in a pure democracy. Our fore fathers went out of their way to prevent that. Hence, checks and balances. This 'tyranny' of judicial review is clearly provided for in the constitution and has 'tyranically' imposed civil rights for women and blacks when the majority of the U.S. population was against it.
This is an interesting idea, but I have two problems with it. First, that website about the flat tax doesn't really explain how there would be the same amount of revenue as the current system. Secondly, I also still feel that first 20,000 of income should be tax free. The working poor need that break.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
are you a northern republican?
representative republic, ware someone?s in new Hampshire counts for more than I do in Texas.
Which I?m fine with, what I?m not fine with is the use of jurisprudence to re-write laws.
we have actually constitutional amendments regarding this, documents that rulings can be based on. The right to life is one of those core documents that the USSC should be looking at but gleefully overlooks in an attempt to give the newly established person of the Woman more right to selfishness than a child right to life.
Actually the alternative minimum tax isn?t to hit until ~ 40k, smaller brackets on up to it, it?ll be ~ 27% and the rest of what?s needed will be taken via sales tax, which will lead to a call for lower spending quickly enough.
This is the republican revolution that a second term for bush will bring.
You didn?t think that we elected republicans for 10 years to both houses, and a republican to the presidency for four of those without a plan did you?
Now that it?s going to take 15 years to implement fully is a bit annoying, but change takes time.
imported_tss4
Golden Member
Southern Democrat. Although, I started out southern republican before they got in bed so tight with the christian coaltion and they still believed in lower spending.
You're civil rights memory is a little fuzzy here. Those constitutional amendments weren't added till 1964. In 1954, the 'tyranical' courts, against popular racist opinion, made seperate but equal illegal.
As to your claim of tyranical courts:
This power of judicial review is provided for in Article III of Constitution Section. 2 and has survived legal challenges since 1801. You keep waving the consitution around claiming that the courts are circumventing it but here in play view is the proof that thay are not. I've told you this before but you never give a reason for why this particular part of the constitution doesn't apparently matter to you.
You're going to be dissapointed. Even your own party isn't even unified on this one.
ABitTooSpicy
Senior member
totalcommand
Platinum Member
"Having wealth and the ability to gain wealth are totally independent of each other, so there should be a flat tax not a progressive tax."
[paraphrased]
In fact, the more money you have, the easier it is to make even more money through investment. The less money you have, the harder it is to make more money. I'm not even talking about quantity-wise, I'm talking about percentage-wise. A rich person can easily increase his/her wealth by a huge percentage, while the poor person has to try much harder to increase wealth by even a small percentage. Why? Because there are so many more economic opportunities available to the rich person than to the poor person - the poor person is very likely unable to get a good education compared to the rich person, which severely handicaps the ability to find a highpaying job. Every aim to increase wealth requires an investment - rich people have much more money to invest in themselves than poor people do.
We hear a lot about social (read economic) mobility in the U.S. But the fact is that rich people have no need for this social mobility, while poor people do. Poor people have to go the extra mile to gain wealth so they can live a "normal" middle-class lifestyle. Since rich people have such a great advantage in gaining more and more wealth, it is perfectly acceptable that they pay more taxes than poor people, because the poor people have many less opportunities.
Wealth is directly related to the ability to gain wealth.
So, what this really comes down to is whether it is fair that rich people pay more taxes because they have more opportunities to gain wealth. I admit, this is a tough question. You'll say that rich people have earned that wealth they already have. Poor people just haven't put the effort to gain wealth. But, again, I think this comes down to economic opportunities. How did the rich person become rich? Through both economic opportunity and his or her own effort. Why is the poor person still poor? Because of either/both lack of economic opportunities and lack of his or her own effort. I would say that most poor people remain poor not because they do not put the effort, but because they lack opportunity. (Feel free to argue this statement using non-anecdotal evidence). So, the reason we need a progressive tax is to balance out the differences in economic opportunity in the two groups, so that poor people that put the effort in can gain wealth, and, yes, the rich people who do not put the effort in can lose wealth.
All of this above leads to the following: Vote LIBERAL! - NO THIS ISN'T A BAD WORD, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM.
[paraphrased]
In fact, the more money you have, the easier it is to make even more money through investment. The less money you have, the harder it is to make more money. I'm not even talking about quantity-wise, I'm talking about percentage-wise. A rich person can easily increase his/her wealth by a huge percentage, while the poor person has to try much harder to increase wealth by even a small percentage. Why? Because there are so many more economic opportunities available to the rich person than to the poor person - the poor person is very likely unable to get a good education compared to the rich person, which severely handicaps the ability to find a highpaying job. Every aim to increase wealth requires an investment - rich people have much more money to invest in themselves than poor people do.
We hear a lot about social (read economic) mobility in the U.S. But the fact is that rich people have no need for this social mobility, while poor people do. Poor people have to go the extra mile to gain wealth so they can live a "normal" middle-class lifestyle. Since rich people have such a great advantage in gaining more and more wealth, it is perfectly acceptable that they pay more taxes than poor people, because the poor people have many less opportunities.
Wealth is directly related to the ability to gain wealth.
So, what this really comes down to is whether it is fair that rich people pay more taxes because they have more opportunities to gain wealth. I admit, this is a tough question. You'll say that rich people have earned that wealth they already have. Poor people just haven't put the effort to gain wealth. But, again, I think this comes down to economic opportunities. How did the rich person become rich? Through both economic opportunity and his or her own effort. Why is the poor person still poor? Because of either/both lack of economic opportunities and lack of his or her own effort. I would say that most poor people remain poor not because they do not put the effort, but because they lack opportunity. (Feel free to argue this statement using non-anecdotal evidence). So, the reason we need a progressive tax is to balance out the differences in economic opportunity in the two groups, so that poor people that put the effort in can gain wealth, and, yes, the rich people who do not put the effort in can lose wealth.
All of this above leads to the following: Vote LIBERAL! - NO THIS ISN'T A BAD WORD, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM.
totalcommand
Platinum Member
You replied so fast, I know you didn't read my post. Read it again, and comment on the actual details rather then posting junk like that. I specifically addressed your statement. Poor people who put in effort should get richer, rich people who do not put in effort should get poorer. Progressive tax is needed to balance out economic opportunity. Read the post.
I did read your post. Don't assume I didn't. Edit By the way, I happen to be a very quick reader.
While it's true that "money makes money", this is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence. Are there never wealthy people that end up broke? Are there never people who are self-made millionaires?
Frankly, any tax system based upon what you have, and not what you've earned is susceptible to fraud, and, IMHO, ludicrous. Solve these problems by instituting a federal sales tax. It encourages saving, which helps the economy. If you don't want to be taxed a lot, don't buy a lot of stuff.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
