Progressive taxation is here to stay, ultimately because it benefits majority of the population. If you strip down all of the peripheral, distracting issues, such as gay marriage, flag burning, gun control, etc, and had people vote purely in their economic self interest, the majority of people would vote for a more progressive tax system every time.
yet again the flakes, bumms, looser and lazy ones are beeing rewarded !
- Thread starter flmgrip_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p>Because 95% of people pay less than half of the income taxes.</p>
<p>50% of the people pay roughly 4% of the income tax.</p>
<p>In other words, half the people essentially get a free ride.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>50% of the people pay roughly 4% of the income tax.</p>
<p>In other words, half the people essentially get a free ride.</p>
<p> </p>
momopi_IHB
New member
A counter-culture moment:
"The joys of idleness"
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe109.html
"The abolition of work"
http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html
"The joys of idleness"
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe109.html
"The abolition of work"
http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html
UrbanVerve_IHB
New member
Is it unfair for someone making $25k to pay $2500 in taxes when someone who makes $2.5m pays $250,000? Only if you think that $2.5m is 'too much' for one person to be making. While some who hold this view may fool themselves into thinking they are being altruistic and have only the greater good in mind, the truth is that they advocate action that would be robbery and extortion if perpetrated by an individual.
----
Exactly. It's a police power of government to steal from those who accumulated more and give it to those who accumulated less or use it themselves as political currency. Try that yourself and you end up in jail. But I suppose its more "fair" to legislate that those who have been financial achievers must subsidize others. That's if you define government's role as the agent to make people financially equal by holding some people back and boosting others forward. Personally, I don't think that's the government's job. Last time I checked, our government was formed to enforce a legal framework that protects our safety, our liberty and our ability to pursue a personally satisfactory life that doesn't impose on the safety or liberty of others - not to be the provider of our happiness, nor the mediator of it.
Oh, and the reason Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary is because his household taxable earnings are less. You too can pay low taxes if you voluntarily limit your salary to less than 1% of the comparable market for your skills. He comments that he wishes he could pay more in taxes, but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government for them to spend. I think he has a clue that giving the money to the government is not the way to use it most efficiently. Think about how much that $1,200 "rebate" could have been worth if it was just never collected and never shuffled through the layers of the system to begin with.
----
Exactly. It's a police power of government to steal from those who accumulated more and give it to those who accumulated less or use it themselves as political currency. Try that yourself and you end up in jail. But I suppose its more "fair" to legislate that those who have been financial achievers must subsidize others. That's if you define government's role as the agent to make people financially equal by holding some people back and boosting others forward. Personally, I don't think that's the government's job. Last time I checked, our government was formed to enforce a legal framework that protects our safety, our liberty and our ability to pursue a personally satisfactory life that doesn't impose on the safety or liberty of others - not to be the provider of our happiness, nor the mediator of it.
Oh, and the reason Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary is because his household taxable earnings are less. You too can pay low taxes if you voluntarily limit your salary to less than 1% of the comparable market for your skills. He comments that he wishes he could pay more in taxes, but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government for them to spend. I think he has a clue that giving the money to the government is not the way to use it most efficiently. Think about how much that $1,200 "rebate" could have been worth if it was just never collected and never shuffled through the layers of the system to begin with.
NSR,
Well, I suppose if you were in that top tier, and couldn't stand the system, you could move to a different country(perhaps, a communist country or theocracy and join the ruling class) or you and the other top tier folks could try and get the majority of the people into that top 5% so they will vote with you. Or, as I said before, you could try and confuse the masses and get them distracted so they will vote against their self interest, it has worked in the past. Have democracy work for you!
Well, I suppose if you were in that top tier, and couldn't stand the system, you could move to a different country(perhaps, a communist country or theocracy and join the ruling class) or you and the other top tier folks could try and get the majority of the people into that top 5% so they will vote with you. Or, as I said before, you could try and confuse the masses and get them distracted so they will vote against their self interest, it has worked in the past. Have democracy work for you!
NSR,
Also, I would argue that the bottom 50% does not get a free ride. If you packed them up and sent them to Antartica, who would buy the goods that were produced by our corporations, who would mow your lawn for 20 bucks, and run the assembly lines that make our corporations great?
Also, I would argue that the bottom 50% does not get a free ride. If you packed them up and sent them to Antartica, who would buy the goods that were produced by our corporations, who would mow your lawn for 20 bucks, and run the assembly lines that make our corporations great?
green_cactus_IHB
New member
<em>"Exactly. It's a police power of government to steal from those who accumulated more and give it to those who accumulated less or use it themselves as political currency."</em>
People have had that sort of rationale a long time ago in much of the developing world - favoring industrialists over commoners. Do you know what happened in such nations?
People have had that sort of rationale a long time ago in much of the developing world - favoring industrialists over commoners. Do you know what happened in such nations?
TimHume_IHB
New member
NSR and Urban - See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution">French Revolution</a> for info on what happens when the masses are not kept happy.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p><em>Do you know what happened in such nations?</em> </p>
<p>They did quite well.</p>
<p>It's the worker's paradises that have largely collapsed into corruption and failure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>They did quite well.</p>
<p>It's the worker's paradises that have largely collapsed into corruption and failure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
UrbanVerve_IHB
New member
Green, that's the misconception -- thinking there are only two classes. You're talking absolutes - people who have any and people who have none. That's not the way our country is. There are people who have more and people who have less and it will always be that way. If you take away the bottom 20 percent, guess what? There's a new bottom 20 percent. There is no great divide. You'll find no clear consensus on what makes up 'lower-class' or 'middle-class' or 'upper-class' or any of the hyphenated hybrids. These are just labels politicians use to make you feel like someone is better off than you and boy, doesn't that make you mad? In the U.S., more so than any other nation, I would argue, do you have the legally protected ability to move up and move down through your effort or lack thereof. It might take more than one generation - but that's the beauty of being able to leave the fruits of your labor to your own children. There are not just two Americas - there are more than 300,000,000 Americas.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p>OCPOP, I'm for providing a safety, opportunity and access. Taxes when excessive become counter productive as people spend more energy hiding assets than earning assets. At the same time, some items must be done at the Government level since our economies have not realized a way to capture external costs such as pollution. </p>
<p>However, I dare you to look at any of the public worker unions whether fireman, cops, teachers, prison guards, or plain old state, county or city workers and miss the bereaucracy and waste.</p>
<p>For the above comparison between the $25,000 person and the $2.5 person, let's stick with reality. If you mistakenly realise $2.5M of taxable income, it's a nice problem to have. But make no doubt, they do not pay $25,000 in tax, they pay $847,206 in tax.</p>
<p>A person making $128,600 taxable, pays $25,000 in taxes. At $365,000 it's $100,000 in taxes. At a mere $793,700, you pay the magic $250,000 in income taxes.</p>
<p> The poor shouldn't pay more. Neither should high income earners, they pay plenty. We need to control our spending.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I dare you to look at any of the public worker unions whether fireman, cops, teachers, prison guards, or plain old state, county or city workers and miss the bereaucracy and waste.</p>
<p>For the above comparison between the $25,000 person and the $2.5 person, let's stick with reality. If you mistakenly realise $2.5M of taxable income, it's a nice problem to have. But make no doubt, they do not pay $25,000 in tax, they pay $847,206 in tax.</p>
<p>A person making $128,600 taxable, pays $25,000 in taxes. At $365,000 it's $100,000 in taxes. At a mere $793,700, you pay the magic $250,000 in income taxes.</p>
<p> The poor shouldn't pay more. Neither should high income earners, they pay plenty. We need to control our spending.</p>
<p> </p>
green_cactus_IHB
New member
"In the U.S., more so than any other nation, I would argue, do you have the legally protected ability to move up and move down through your effort or lack thereof."
How do you explain class and gender disparity then? There is implicit discrimination against minorities and women in this country.
How do you explain class and gender disparity then? There is implicit discrimination against minorities and women in this country.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p><em>There is implicit discrimination against minorities and women in this country.</em> </p>
<p>Bullpucky. When you control for years of work experience, education and field of work, those disparities disappear are become less than measure of error.
</p>
<p>Bullpucky. When you control for years of work experience, education and field of work, those disparities disappear are become less than measure of error.
</p>
UrbanVerve_IHB
New member
There is implicit discrimination against minorities and women in this country.
---
Lest we forget, the smallest minority in this country is the individual. What law do we have now that forbids a minority or female citizen from an opportunity afforded to others? I guess there are still some that apply to the military with regard to combat missions, but that's about it.
---
Lest we forget, the smallest minority in this country is the individual. What law do we have now that forbids a minority or female citizen from an opportunity afforded to others? I guess there are still some that apply to the military with regard to combat missions, but that's about it.
green_cactus_IHB
New member
<em>"Bullpucky. When you control for years of work experience, education and field of work, those disparities disappear are become less than measure of error."</em>
There are possible hundreds of studies arguing against this point - especially when it comes to women on the work force. The gender disparity actually GROWS as levels of education get higher.
There are possible hundreds of studies arguing against this point - especially when it comes to women on the work force. The gender disparity actually GROWS as levels of education get higher.
Trooper_IHB
New member
<p><em>"What law do we have now that forbids a minority or female citizen from an opportunity afforded to others? I guess there are still some that apply to the military with regard to combat missions, but that's about it".</em> </p>
<p>Now pretend you are gay, and rethink your question.</p>
<p>Now pretend you are gay, and rethink your question.</p>
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p>When you control the studies for years in the work force, the disparity disappears. NOW trots out their flawed women make 66 cents on the dollar for men every year such that people believe it because they repeat it so much and it makes a nice headline. When you dissect their methodology and control, it falls apart.</p>
<p>This is issue is now trite like your entire postion which is based on hyperbole and the made up moral authority needed by implying anybody that disagrees with your is a closet racist. In the public sector you've completed the new Godwin's law. You espouse the failed concepts of Marx. "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is issue is now trite like your entire postion which is based on hyperbole and the made up moral authority needed by implying anybody that disagrees with your is a closet racist. In the public sector you've completed the new Godwin's law. You espouse the failed concepts of Marx. "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".</p>
<p> </p>
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
I have always wondered if women in sales do better than men. I know I would rather buy from a hottie than from some dude.