If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7554 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | » | Last
 
  2008-05-23 04:41:08 PM
Oh and I made some other points about incentives for the middle class. Care to address them?
 
  2008-05-23 04:44:09 PM
Sales taxes are not what I am talking about AR55, and dottedmint is unclear on the concept.

The offerings at this all-you-can-eat buffet style restaurant owned by the government include services (social or otherwise), building and maintenance of infrastructure, and other things. Individuals and corporations use these services in varying degrees. They also use publicly funded infrastructure (like roads, highways, and water treatment). In the case of publicly funded infrastructure, corporations use much more of our highway, water, and sewage systems in order to make a profit from the products and services they provide. Since they benefit more from publicly funded services and infrastructure than any single individual does, they should pay more in taxes.
 
  2008-05-23 05:23:48 PM
Whidbey: "The fact is that you can absorb the tax far better than I can."

Again Whidbey you are making an assumption on how much that amount of tax would or would not "hurt" me.

"You can still go out to fancy dinners, buy car(s), house(s) or whatever you like, while I am still struggling at 30K ..."

This is the case for every income bracket. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay income taxes. Someone who makes $10,000 would call you "rich" and would say the same thing to you.

"and I've just paid Uncle Sam a third of my income. I can't absorb that."

First.... $4,500 would not be as hard to absorb as you claim. Most people waste that much on things that they really do not need anyways. (long ago I worked for a moving company and 9 times out of 10 when I went to move someone who was "struggling" financially they had better tvs, stereos, shoes, video games, etc than I had)

Second.... Check your math. $4,500 is not one third of $30,000. It sounds nice but it isn't the case.

The correct response would be that you just paid 15% of your income to the government.

Guess what....

SO DID I...

"I am the one actually doing the WORK. You're cashing in.

And yes, I realize that's a bit general."


A bit????

If it was soooo easily for people to get "rich" without having to actually work for it everyone would be "rich".

IF you want to make it easier for people to buy homes or land.... Fine.
 
  2008-05-23 05:33:57 PM
dottedmint: "You can still go out to fancy dinners, buy car(s), house(s) or whatever you like, while I am still struggling at 30K ..."

This is the case for every income bracket. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay income taxes. Someone who makes $10,000 would call you "rich" and would say the same thing to you.


Uh, no.

Again Whidbey you are making an assumption on how much that amount of tax would or would not "hurt" me.

It wouldn't hurt you. Again, 1% of the population owns a THIRD of the wealth. Even after they biatch about taxes.

If it was soooo easily for people to get "rich" without having to actually work for it everyone would be "rich".

Relevance? What does this have to do with whether upper-income brackets should be taxed more/less?


IF you want to make it easier for people to buy homes or land.... Fine.


I'm surprised you agree, because it wouldn't apply to people making 100K or more.
 
  2008-05-23 07:18:52 PM
Sigh.... Whidbey.....

I can still remember when I made $10,000 and I felt those "fat cats" making $30,000 had it pretty good. They could afford to actually buy things that I could not afford to buy. So to me they were "rich".

"Again, 1% of the population owns a THIRD of the wealth. Even after they biatch about taxes."

Even IF that is true (you haven't always been very accurate with your numbers) so what? They also pay over 30% of the taxes.

"What does this have to do with whether upper-income brackets should be taxed more/less?"

Uh... Whidbey you made it relevant when you said,

"I am the one actually doing the WORK. You're cashing in."

You are NOT the only one doing hard WORK. IF it is soooo easy for people to get "rich" why aren't more people "rich"?

Most people get "rich" after many years of very hard work and alot of risk.

In any case you were complaining that you would be paying 15% of your income to the government while I would also be paying 15% of my income (and substantially more money) also to the government.

You have yet to explain why you cannot afford it. Simply saying so does not cut it.

lomnoir "In the case of publicly funded infrastructure, corporations use much more of our highway, water, and sewage systems in order to make a profit from the products and services they provide. Since they benefit more from publicly funded services and infrastructure than any single individual does, they should pay more in taxes."

Hmmmm.....

So corporations use more infrastructure than you and I???

Interesting concept and I would love to see some sort of documentation to support that claim but I'll play along for now.

So you want to tax corporations at a higher rate.

Fine.....

Who do you think will actually pay those taxes?

The corporations?

No.

Those expenses will be paid for by their workers, investors or customers.

IF you increase a tax on a corporation that increase will be passed onto one of the three groups I mentioned....

IF you increase taxes on my widget company I will probably just increase the cost of my widgets. Maybe I would pass some of that increase on in smaller raises for my workers or maybe a cut in benefits... Maybe I would pass some of that increase on in smaller returns to my investors.... Most likely it would be a combination of all of them.

And are you also going to claim that the "rich" somehow get more "services (social or otherwise)" or somehow use more "publicly funded infrastructure (like roads, highways, and water treatment)" than the "poor"?

IF so....

Based on what?

How many government "services" are available to the "poor"???

LOTS......

I would be willing to bet that far more "services" go to the "poor" than the "rich"....

So your concept that those who use more "services" should pay more is weak to say the least.....
 
  2008-05-23 07:37:35 PM
dottedmint: so what? They also pay over 30% of the taxes.

And they can comfortably afford it. After all, they don't own any less? And you can look up that figure for yourself. Leave it to you to challenge a well-accepted fact.

Most people get "rich" after many years of very hard work and alot of risk.

Irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that the middle class is the actual burden in the United States when it comes to paying taxes. They cannot merely absorb the taxes they pay to Uncle Sam with the same ease as the upper brackets do. Your reply is a red herring.

In any case you were complaining that you would be paying 15% of your income to the government while I would also be paying 15% of my income (and substantially more money) also to the government.

You have yet to explain why you cannot afford it. Simply saying so does not cut it.

I've already explained it. As a person who makes roughly 30K, I cannot absorb 15% of my income being taken in the same way a person making 100K can.

The flat tax is not fair to poor and middle class incomes and I do not support it.
 
  2008-05-23 08:45:37 PM
whidbey:
Saiga, you've been awfully quiet about this...


Sorry, some personal things came up. Even though I have had time to lurk and post snark, I just have not had the heart to actually be serious.

On the idea of the progressive income tax. I must say it makes good economic sense to me. The rich does have more disposable income than the poor and middle class. Depending upon where you want the economy to go, this can be good. I just have a problem with having the govt treat people differently based upon abstract borders. My vision of a good govt is one that is like lady justice, blind. The treating of people based upon an abstract of how much they make just does not make any sense to me in the scope of social justice. There is not much of a correlation between income and use of govt services. The poor use it mainly as a way to make ends meet (foodstamps, sec8, eitc....) and the rich use it mainly on contractual enforcement (the justice system). What is the difference in cost between the two to provide and then weigh the use of each by each tax bracket? Roads, police, fire, defense is open and available to all to use (also my initial comment was centered around the fed govt so police and fire is not really applicable).

The road analogy fails because in most circumstances those are paid through user fees (tags, title, and gas tax). Road, shuchks just about all infrastructures is paid for by the use of them through direct fees. If a company is making money via shipping, or just the need to get their product to market, they pay for the use of the roads. The benefit from these services is seen through the use of them, the use of them pay for the benefit.

Defense. I cannot see how anyone receives any extra benefit from this (MIC aside). We all enjoy being free and the ultimate if we fail at defense the resultant will be the same fore everyone and that is their life (the most that you can ever lose.)

Back to the point, taxes should be set to pay for the cost of services and not the total benefit provided. If all services are equally available then the cost should be applied evenly to everyone. That is not possible, the poor and probably the middle class cannot shoulder that burden, they just do not make enough to pay a per citizen averaged amount. Ok well we do have an income tax, if we use it then we should use it evenly, thus a flat taxe.

I also want to get into the fact that we are moving to a point where there are more people that pay no tax but get an equal say in increasing govt services. If they are not harmed by the need to pay for these services then what is the stop?

Also on the bit that started all of this. I feel that most people are for the progressive tax scheme to make a way to equalize everyone's economic standards, there are some people that also want to hurt the rich for their own reasons, but that is a very vocal minority. I feel that equality in actions should be maintained so thus the progressive tax treats people unequally and is therefor affront to the ideals (actually the romanticized ideals) that founded the US (slavery and all that withstanding, that was a Faustian deal in order to form our govt).

/That is some serious rambling, I really need to get more sleep than I have had this week.
 
  2008-05-23 09:10:33 PM
"And you can look up that figure for yourself. Leave it to you to challenge a well-accepted fact."

Forgive me Whidbey but since you have posted figures that are just a bit "off" I find myself a bit skeptical of your claims...

But fine.....

Let's say the top 1% of the population owns a third of the wealth....

You claim that is just unfair....terrible.....a shame to this country.....and simply wrong.....

Alright how much should they own???

What percentage of the wealth could the top 1% own and still be fair????

"Irrelevant to the discussion."

As I said before you made it relevant when you said,

"I am the one actually doing the WORK. You're cashing in."

You made it sound like the "rich" don't need to do anything to make their money except sit back on their fat arses and have the money roll in. You ignore the years and years of hard work that most "rich" people need to put in before they are "rich".

"The point is that the middle class is the actual burden in the United States when it comes to paying taxes."

I've been over this already....

The top 10% pay around 70% of federal taxes.

The bottom 90% pay around 30% of federal taxes.

30% is hardly some huge burden.....

"I've already explained it. As a person who makes roughly 30K, I cannot absorb 15% of my income being taken in the same way a person making 100K can."

Right.....

Because you say you can't you can't......

I have more than a few friends who make around 30k. Many of them have better things than I have and I do make more than 30k. They complain that they have a hard time making ends meet but they spend a fortune on cigarettes, going out drinking every other night, the latest video game for themselves or their kids, the latest cell phones, and all sorts of other things that they frankly do not need to buy.

So do us both a favor and don't give me this bs that someone who makes 30k just can't possibly afford to pay $4,500 in taxes.

Reality does not back up your claims....
 
  2008-05-23 09:19:05 PM
dottedmint: So do us both a favor and don't give me this bs that someone who makes 30k just can't possibly afford to pay $4,500 in taxes.

Reality does not back up your claims....


Anecdotal information is not "reality" nor does it disprove what I'm saying.

And it's simple math. If you make 100K, you get to keep a hell of a lot more money than I do at 30K.

Somebody else want to weigh in on this? I'm sick of repeating the obvious.
 
  2008-05-23 09:35:02 PM
Here. I'll even DO the math for you:

100K, taxed at 15%: $15K tax
Remainder: $85,000

30K, taxed at 15%: 4.5K tax
Remainder: $25,500

This is not FAIR in any way. The more you make, the more you end up with.
 
  2008-05-23 10:50:14 PM
whidbey: I'm not "hating on the rich," I'm pointing out why it's justifiable why they're taxed so highly. It makes a lot of sense to me to make the people who get the most out of this system give back, but I remain surprised why people go along with it. It's far too altruistic a philosophy in a dog-eat-dog world...

First of all define how they get more out of the system than other families. If I am not mistake the rich send their children to first rate private schools. So they pay twice as much (their taxes plus the tuition for the private school) for education as a normal family would. They are able to provide for most if not all of the tuition for college. They are not eligible for government subsidizing their tuition costs. They don't benefit from medicare, medicaid, or social security. They have their own retirement plans, they pay for their own health (or are provided it by their place of work.)

I am curious to how exactly they "benefit" more than anyone else would. And why they should be taxed more than anyone else. Everyone in this country is equal, there is ZERO reason why one group should have higher or lower taxes. They should be proportional. Unless you favor redistribution of wealth, there isn't a reason why it shouldn't be proportional.

whidbey: FDR's programs were beginning to show progress, even with the high unemployment. If anything, the war drew focus from those reforms.

You are absolutely right! The war did draw away from FDR's disastrous New Deal policies. But the New Deal was a complete failure. The crash of 1938 and the high unemployment throughout the 1930s is proof to this.

It is a sad fact of history that such bright diligent people could be blinded by their own crusades and wind up hurting the very people they wanted to protect. It is a testament to history of what you should NOT do in a depression, there are lessons to be learned and ignoring the disasters that took place only hinders us as a country.

whidbey: Still benefits the rich more it does the lower classes. If I had the money to throw down on whatever I wanted, I might grumble about the tax. For some people it might mean not buying the item altogether.

I'm not advocating a national sales tax only, I don't understand all the effects it has on infrastructure, government agencies, or law.

But this doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say that a middle class person who couldn't afford a brand new Lexus lost a privilege to afford one? If anything it would advocate smarter spending. There is ZERO reason to buy a new car to begin with. You have find amazing deals on used cars, I should know because that's how I found mine and couldn't of been happier for the last three years.

Aside from purchasing a car, that is out of their budget to begin with, how would it exactly benefit the rich? People would end up buying used goods that wouldn't be taxed at all. If anything this would mean additional taxes for businesses, top tier families, and schools. But if this was the only tax to be employed that would mean you get a 100% of your income. Turns out that $30,000 goes a long way when you don't throw it all away.

But again I don't claim to understand everything about a flat sales tax, and I don't even know if it could sustain the country.

Let me end this reply by saying this quoting system sucks. They need to come up with better coding, or provide boxes around user's comments to differentiate between people.
 
  2008-05-23 10:52:49 PM
whidbey: Here. I'll even DO the math for you:

100K, taxed at 15%: $15K tax
Remainder: $85,000

30K, taxed at 15%: 4.5K tax
Remainder: $25,500

This is not FAIR in any way. The more you make, the more you end up with.


You are kidding me right? That is proportionally equal. The reason why the man with 100k is able to keep more is because he is making more, but they are both paying the same amount.
 
  2008-05-23 11:22:20 PM
dottedmint:
Hmmmm.....

So corporations use more infrastructure than you and I???

Interesting concept and I would love to see some sort of documentation to support that claim but I'll play along for now.

So you want to tax corporations at a higher rate.

Fine.....

Who do you think will actually pay those taxes?

The corporations?

No.

Those expenses will be paid for by their workers, investors or customers.

IF you increase a tax on a corporation that increase will be passed onto one of the three groups I mentioned....

IF you increase taxes on my widget company I will probably just increase the cost of my widgets. Maybe I would pass some of that increase on in smaller raises for my workers or maybe a cut in benefits... Maybe I would pass some of that increase on in smaller returns to my investors.... Most likely it would be a combination of all of them.

And are you also going to claim that the "rich" somehow get more "services (social or otherwise)" or somehow use more "publicly funded infrastructure (like roads, highways, and water treatment)" than the "poor"?

IF so....

Based on what?

How many government "services" are available to the "poor"???

LOTS......

I would be willing to bet that far more "services" go to the "poor" than the "rich"....

So your concept that those who use more "services" should pay more is weak to say the least.....

It's true that corporations do pass along their tax burden onto the consumer. That's how it works. I still believe that you may be unclear about who uses what services and to what extent, dottedmint. From your two comments about my analogy, you assert that "the poor" uses far more services than "the rich"
with the assumption that corporations do not use publicly funded infrastructure in the same frequency individuals use it. While I will say that certain people "benefit" from the welfare state (what I interpret your meaning of services used by "the poor") I offer these questions for you to think about:

Who does the Interstate Highway System (IHS) benefit the most? Is it the family from Ann Arbor driving down I-75 to spend a week's vacation in Orlando, or is it the Disney Corporation using a vast fleet of semis on the IHS to make sure hundreds of thousands of Bambi Special Edition DVDs make it to their respective retail outlets (without relying on privately owned railroad to do the same thing)?

Are you, as an individual, able to use public airwaves the same way NBC, Clear Channel, and Sinclair Broadcasting do?

Do you, as an individual, have the same access to policymakers so that regulations favor you and your interests, just like corporate interests in the pharmaceutical, food, and other industries?

I believe the difference of opinion we have are not amongst "poor" and "rich", but between individuals and corporations. Chris Rock makes the best description about who is "rich" (Shaq is rich, but the man who writes his check is wealthy) but I digress. Some rich people do benefit from the increased access to infrastructure and services like many wealthy people do (as controlling-interest stockholders and owners of corporations). That's why I feel progressive taxes are better. Besides, when the Federal Government said there should be income taxes they had corporations and wealthy people in mind. (new window)
 
  2008-05-23 11:39:10 PM
Whidbey: "This is not FAIR in any way. The more you make, the more you end up with."

Oh.... I get it Whidbey....

In order for things to be "fair" the person who makes $100,000 would have to be taxed at a rate that would result in that person ending up with $25,500.

Basically....about a 75% tax rate.

Sure.... that would be fair.

You pay 15% ($4,500) in taxes and I pay 75% ($75,000) in taxes.....

We would both end up with around $25,000 after taxes....

Whidbey you are not interested in fairness. You are interested in punishing those who have more than you.
 
  2008-05-24 01:21:28 AM
AR55: I am curious to how exactly they "benefit" more than anyone else would. And why they should be taxed more than anyone else. Everyone in this country is equal, there is ZERO reason why one group should have higher or lower taxes.

But then, everyone in this country is not "equal," and the reason why they are taxed higher is because there is a philosophy that they should be. One I happen to agree with, even if I don't understand it much myself.

You are absolutely right! The war did draw away from FDR's disastrous New Deal policies. But the New Deal was a complete failure. The crash of 1938 and the high unemployment throughout the 1930s is proof to this.

Your opinion. You're not going to find a source that proves that the recession of 1937 occurred because of New Deal policies. The New Deal was hardly given a chance to work when WWII distracted the country from the issue. I maintain it was the right thing to do, even if it was too all-encompassing for its own good.


It is a sad fact of history that such bright diligent people could be blinded by their own crusades and wind up hurting the very people they wanted to protect. It is a testament to history of what you should NOT do in a depression, there are lessons to be learned and ignoring the disasters that took place only hinders us as a country.


Do you actually have a point to make amongst your implied anti-FDR rhetoric? Just wondering. Throughout the Depression, the rich continued to do fine. America was still #1 in exports. The working man was left in the hall.

There is ZERO reason to buy a new car to begin with. You have find amazing deals on used cars, I should know because that's how I found mine and couldn't of been happier for the last three years.

In other words, you agree that only rich people should be allowed to buy new cars. No subsidies or tax breaks should be given to middle class people to facilitate this desire. Glad we cleared that up.

Whidbey you are not interested in fairness. You are interested in punishing those who have more than you.

Just pointing out a fact, dottedmint. A very small percentage of the country owns and controls a great deal of it.

That isn't "fair" to me. Nor is it "fair" that the middle class be the ones who, for the most part, work for that small percentage, keeping them rich.
 
  2008-05-24 01:23:12 AM
AR55: You are kidding me right? That is proportionally equal. The reason why the man with 100k is able to keep more is because he is making more, but they are both paying the same amount.

Hell no, I'm not kidding. A flat tax is NOT FAIR to the middle class. We cannot absorb the tax as well as the rich.

Why is this so hard for you two to understand?
 
  2008-05-24 02:04:09 AM
whidbey , should the govt be concerned more with fairness or equality in their actions?

Fairness is such a subjective standard to achieve, but equality is unprejudiced because it strives to treat everyone the same. The actions of the govt should not try to be fair but to be as blind as lady justice.
 
  2008-05-24 02:22:36 AM
Saiga410: whidbey , should the govt be concerned more with fairness or equality in their actions?

Like I said, I don't understand why America goes along with the practice of taxing the rich at higher rates than everyone else, but I'm glad that mechanism is there.

But I've gotten a little too militant in my postings.

I would be willing to give a tax break to the rich if they were willing to cede enough of their economic power to give the middle class incentives like buying real estate or giving them a break on interest rates, credit or mortgages. To me, that would be fair.
 
  2008-05-24 03:22:05 AM
whidbey:
Like I said, I don't understand why America goes along with the practice of taxing the rich at higher rates than everyone else, but I'm glad that mechanism is there.

But I've gotten a little too militant in my postings.

I would be willing to give a tax break to the rich if they were willing to cede enough of their economic power to give the middle class incentives like buying real estate or giving them a break on interest rates, credit or mortgages. To me, that would be fair.

Militant postings, it is kinda hard to not be cornered on some aspects of an issue. Thus usually prompts people to move to a harder line stance that they would usually take for want not to sound hypocritical. Been there.

I find your suggestion interesting. If it were not feasible in today's deficit riddled environment, I would stand next to you on this. If we (the US) could afford it I would not mind seeing growing Fanny Mae and ... (drawing a blank on the other) to allow for more first time borrowing. My ideology makes me hesitant though to put limits on the amount borrowed (as long as borrowers met income levels that guaranteed the loan could be paid.) The pragmatist in me would be willing to accept a limit on borrowing to around 80% of the median house cost for the area.

/Is my hypocrite showing?
 
  2008-05-24 08:09:06 AM
Whidbey: "Just pointing out a fact, dottedmint. A very small percentage of the country owns and controls a great deal of it."

Fine....

I asked you this before and I will ask you again....

"What percentage of the wealth could the top 1% own and still be fair????"

Now do us all a favor and try to answer that because I would really like to get an idea of what you feel is "fair".

"That isn't "fair" to me. Nor is it "fair" that the middle class be the ones who, for the most part, work for that small percentage, keeping them rich."

And who exactly do you think people (middle class or any class) should work for?

I can't think of any case where someone works for someone who makes less money than them.

I know at least in my case I have always worked for people who make more money than I do.

That's how it usually work....

People with money create jobs and hire others to make them more money.

And again Whidbey I would like to know how much of a tax would be fair for someone making 100,000 to pay.

If you would end up with $25,500 after taxes how much should someone making 100,000 end up with after taxes?

would it only be fair if that person ended up wtaihs25,500 as well after taxes????

Or would it be fair if the "rich" person ended up with more than that?

If so...

How much????

Basically Whidbey I'm trying to get you to define what is or is not fair.....

We know what you feel is not fair....

What would be fair.....
 
  2008-05-25 02:42:44 PM
dottedmint: "What percentage of the wealth could the top 1% own and still be fair????"

Now do us all a favor and try to answer that because I would really like to get an idea of what you feel is "fair".


I prefer the current tax system where the upper income brackets are taxed highly. That's "fair" to me at present. Not perfect, but I can live with it.

Besides, if you really are that rich, and you're paying any taxes at all, you're doing it wrong.

But what's concerning here is that you don't believe there are any notable discrepancies in our society. Everything works according to "economics" in your world, and nothing justifies giving a break to anybody, unless they've somehow "earned" it. It just isn't "economical," otherwise is it?

I believe the middle class is what needs a serious break, and it should be in the form of low interest, no BS loans, or knocking off a sizable amount the cost of real estate for people making less than 100K. And that's just a start.
 
  2008-05-25 06:50:47 PM
"Not perfect, but I can live with it."

Clearly not.....

You have repeatedly said that it is not "fair" that the top 1% of the population owns one third of the wealth.

So what would be "fair"?

How much of the wealth would it be "fair" for the top 1% of the population to own?

"I believe the middle class is what needs a serious break,"

Right.....

The bottom 90% pay around 30% of federal taxes.

...and 30% is just way too much for the bottom 90% to pay.

The problem that most people face is living beyond their means. Instead of living within their means they buy big expensive homes, they buy new cars, they go on trips, etc, etc, etc.

IF more people were careful with their money there would not be as much "hardship" in the middle class.

"and it should be in the form of low interest, no BS loans, or knocking off a sizable amount the cost of real estate for people making less than 100K."

It sounds like you want to take steps to cause another housing bubble.?.?.?

And I'm not exactly sure how you would go about making the price of land less for someone who makes less than $100k.

The market decides what land is valued at.
 
  2008-05-25 07:36:55 PM
whidbey: But then, everyone in this country is not "equal," and the reason why they are taxed higher is because there is a philosophy that they should be. One I happen to agree with, even if I don't understand it much myself.

I'm sorry that you think people are born are unequal and that the American citizen, its blood diverse from many nations, isn't the same today as it was 100 years ago.

Since that is your personal philosophy I doubt that anything will change your mind. I believe that if citizens are to be taxed it should be equal, proportionally to what they pay. 5%, 10%, 50%. Pick a number and but it the same across all boards.

whidbey: Your opinion. You're not going to find a source that proves that the recession of 1937 occurred because of New Deal policies. The New Deal was hardly given a chance to work when WWII distracted the country from the issue. I maintain it was the right thing to do, even if it was too all-encompassing for its own good.

If you want to talk about the failure of New Deal polices I'll be more than happy to, but that was not the original point of the discussion. I am sorry if it took us off track.

whidbey: In other words, you agree that only rich people should be allowed to buy new cars. No subsidies or tax breaks should be given to middle class people to facilitate this desire. Glad we cleared that up.

I honestly believe purchasing new cars to begin with is outright stupid. Cars always depreciate in value, and the only way you should purchase a car is with cash. You shouldn't have to take a loan out, that increases marginally, while your car's value decreases. That just isn't smart.

The point you made that I claimed "only the rich" can buy cars may have been worded wrongly. Let me try again: The only people who are financially apt should make the decision to purchase new cars. These people are competent with money and make wise choices that best suit their needs of them and their family.

Hopefully that cleared up that little segment, now let me ask you a question. Why should a middle class family purchase a new car? Wouldn't you agree that there is a large difference between buying a car and being able to afford one?

Putting additional financial stress on a family isn't going to help them, you are only hurting them as a result.

Are you advocating that people should be allowed to spend their money in illogical ways? Should we not teach people how to be smart with money, so one day these families can provide their children a better future?

whidbey: That isn't "fair" to me. Nor is it "fair" that the middle class be the ones who, for the most part, work for that small percentage, keeping them rich.

These questions are going to be personal, but it would allow everyone here to see where you are coming from.

What is your background? What education have you received? Have you graduated college? What was your major if so? What is your current job? Do you aspire to move forward in society or are you content where you stand now?

Your rebuttal that "it's not fair" is childish. Are you jealous of the people who do better than you in life? I'm afraid to say that all signs point to yes, but I don't want to jump the gun.

Just so you know where I am coming from:

Both my parents grew up on farms and received no college education. My Dad joined the Air force and learned some trades (cabling and maintenance). My Father used these skills to get a job in Florida working for GTE (now Verizon) laying out telephone lines. After putting 10 years into groundwork he decided to start up his own company, installing satellites. I come from a family of three (youngest of the bunch), and my mom stayed home raising us. My parents couldn't afford to send us to college, so we had to work hard in school to get grants and scholarships. My Sister and I busted our asses in school. As a result we both were able to attend a local state university.

I work two part time jobs, live in a one bedroom apartment with my girlfriend, and I am able to pay myself through college without any debt. Of course I realize that I had to make some sacrifices. I can't go on vacation, I don't buy new items, I don't eat out, I have basic cable, and a crappy cellphone. Hopefully after I graduate I am able to land a job where I can enjoy some luxuries that I couldn't before.

whidbey: Hell no, I'm not kidding. A flat tax is NOT FAIR to the middle class. We cannot absorb the tax as well as the rich.

Why is this so hard for you two to understand?


We live in a society that favors certain jobs over others. Does a Janitor have the right to earn as much as an Accountant? Or Doctor? Or Lawyer? Or Engineer? These careers pay more because their customers deem so.

While everyone may not become a member of the super elite commando squad; people who learn valuable trades, work hard, and make sacrifices can live an enjoyable life.
 
  2008-05-26 03:40:02 AM
dottedmint: The problem that most people face is living beyond their means. Instead of living within their means they buy big expensive homes, they buy new cars, they go on trips, etc, etc, etc.

IF more people were careful with their money there would not be as much "hardship" in the middle class.


That might be true of some of us, but it's kind of asinine to assign that as the only factor. Since you insist on painting with such a broad brush, I can only assume you have no idea (or empathy) for what people are struggling for in their own lives.

The market decides what land is valued at.

I'm specifically targeting the banking/credit industry. For example, for people making less than 100K, maybe all taxes and fees should be waived when buying a house. Or a special interest rate that's far below the current system.

AR55: I'm sorry that you think people are born are unequal and that the American citizen, its blood diverse from many nations, isn't the same today as it was 100 years ago.

Since that is your personal philosophy I doubt that anything will change your mind.


Well that came off as rather patronizing. You really can't do better than offer a veiled condescending reply?

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not a mind-reader.

The only people who are financially apt should make the decision to purchase new cars. These people are competent with money and make wise choices that best suit their needs of them and their family.

Even more condescending. Despite your rosy picture, there are countless working people who have no trouble buying new automobiles and keeping up with the payments. You sound like a snob, AR55:. You're off to a good start with me, I can tell...;)

Why should a middle class family purchase a new car? Wouldn't you agree that there is a large difference between buying a car and being able to afford one?

If people have the credit and can make the payments, then this is a non-issue. I merely suggested that since middle-classers are struggling more than their well-off counterparts, they should be given a break so that they aren't throwing down so much of their paychecks to pay off the financing.

Are you advocating that people should be allowed to spend their money in illogical ways? Should we not teach people how to be smart with money, so one day these families can provide their children a better future?

Illogical according to WHO? And being "smart" with money does not justify denying what might be someone's actual need.

Your rebuttal that "it's not fair" is childish. Are you jealous of the people who do better than you in life? I'm afraid to say that all signs point to yes, but I don't want to jump the gun.

Just pointing out the reality: that someone making 100K is not going to feel the impact of 15% the same way someone making 30K is. That should be obvious to you.

And I'm not interested in having to answer to your condescending scrutiny of the choices I've made in my life. They are irrelevant to this discussion. I am talking about the middle class at large. Instead of seeing flaws in the system, your cry is to blame the worker.

We live in a society that favors certain jobs over others. Does a Janitor have the right to earn as much as an Accountant? Or Doctor? Or Lawyer? Or Engineer? These careers pay more because their customers deem so.


Sorry, but again, I'm not going to entertain the notion as to whether certain jobs are "better" than others. And yes, thank you for sharing your story, but I already understand that hard work is a given. But it's not always enough.

I simply believe that it is time to give the middle class a real honest to goodness BREAK. For once in our lives. You seem to have the attitude that it's taboo to question the system, that somehow you believe that everyone will have an even chance. Well, they don't. The deck is stacked for the most wealthy. It's a fact, and judging by both yours and dottedmint's reply, you're both horrified than anyone dare question it.
 
  2008-05-26 05:24:17 AM
And I'm realizing that I'm replying in a very hasty and somewhat rude manner. It's late, and I should have waited until morning to read your posts. I know I could come up with a better series of answers.

We'll keep discussing this. I apologize if I'm being a dick about it, though. I'm here to learn, and I'm here to debate. It's easy to forget that. For me, anyway.

But anyway, if the last one isn't too nebulously vague or screaming, I welcome your responses.
 
  2008-05-26 10:39:26 AM
"That might be true of some of us, but it's kind of asinine to assign that as the only factor."

1. That is why I said "most people".

2. I never tried to suggest that it was the only factor but it is a major factor.

"I can only assume you have no idea (or empathy) for what people are struggling for in their own lives."

You should never assume Whidbey.

While I do make more than 30k I am far from your magical number of 100k that would make me "rich".

I know people who make more than I do and I know people who make far less than I do.

And obviously I have not always made what I make now.

If I could go back 10-20 years I would correct some of the mistakes I have made and I would find myself in a much better financial state now.

The bottom line Whidbey is that I have a far better idea/understanding of the struggles people face because I have been there and I am hardly at a point of no struggles. I know the mistakes I have made and frankly still make and I see most people making the same mistakes.

Someone who makes 30k simply needs to live within that 30k and far too often many (not all) people will instead live as if they make 40k and get themselves burdened with debt that they can't get out from under.
 
  2008-05-26 11:30:28 AM
PLEASE Fark!

A filter that eliminates every comment with the word 'troll' in it!

Please!
Please!
Please!
Please!
Please!
Please!
Please!
 
  2008-05-26 07:38:55 PM
dottedmint: While I do make more than 30k I am far from your magical number of 100k that would make me "rich".

The "rich" is a number over 200K.
Middle Class= 30K-100K, just for the sake of this argument, although I would say I go a little too high. It's a reality some places. 30K is seriously lower-middle class out here on the West Coast. At least in the cities.

And I seriously wouldn't be bringing up the angle that "people don't live within their means." To me, that justifies someone making 100K whining about "their financial troubles." Every now and again, I'll hear about how a couple is making over 150K and that somehow they're "struggling." I doubt it, seriously, and if they are, it's because they've stretched their own budgets too far.

But the bottom line is, despite their financial choices, they are still better off than the bottom half that pays "only 30%" of the base.

So, I see your argument as missing the point. Of course we should all make better choices. Not the issue.

Someone who makes 30k simply needs to live within that 30k and far too often many (not all) people will instead live as if they make 40k and get themselves burdened with debt that they can't get out from under.

Again, separate issue. The middle class should be able to keep more of their money to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

The upper classes (god, what a stupid term,) taxed as heavily as they are, STILL manage to keep enough money to live comfortably.

And I contend they'd be able to keep even more if you instituted a flat tax, whereas proportionally someone making 30K would not.

And yes, not to confuse you, I'm talking about upper tax brackets.

I also believe in tax breaks for the middle class, because it allows taxpayers to justify expenses.
 
  2008-05-26 09:41:40 PM
The "rich" is a number over 200K.
Middle Class= 30K-100K, just for the sake of this argument,


So then 100k to 200k would be what you call (what) the upper-middle class???

Ok....

So 100k would not make me "rich".....

"Every now and again, I'll hear about how a couple is making over 150K and that somehow they're "struggling." I doubt it, seriously, and if they are, it's because they've stretched their own budgets too far. "

Where's your sympathy for them Whidbey???

They make less than 200k so clearly they are not "rich". And yet you seem to not care about them.

Yes....

They most likely have stretched their budgets too far. They are living as if they make 200k while they only make 150k. And yet when someone who makes 30k lives as if they make 40k we are supposed to feel sorry for them. When someone who makes 30k stretches their budget too far we are supposed to give them a break instead of saying they should live within their means.

"Of course we should all make better choices. Not the issue."

Actually that is part of the issue.

Most people (beit someone who makes 30k or someone who makes 150k) stretch their budgets too far. They complain that they can't make ends meet, that they are struggling, that life is not fair and yet if you look at how they spend their money you will see that poor choices is what gets them in the situations that they are in.

"The middle class should be able to keep more of their money to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

Right.....

Um....Why?

Oh.... I forgot....

Because they are struggling.....

Of course many of them are struggling because they have stretched their budgets too far....
 
  2008-05-27 02:49:05 PM
AR55: I believe that if citizens are to be taxed it should be equal, proportionally to what they pay. 5%, 10%, 50%. Pick a number and but it the same across all boards.

what a sweet kid, you keep saying that while the rich keep working towards shifting their tax burden off themselves on to you.

Lucky for them we have so many middle class and poor americans fighting for them because in a democracy strength is in the numbers and without those votes they would have a hell of a time shifting the tax burden off of themselves.
 
  2008-05-27 07:32:40 PM
Headso "Lucky for them we have so many middle class and poor americans fighting for them because in a democracy strength is in the numbers and without those votes they would have a hell of a time shifting the tax burden off of themselves."


The bottom 50% pay somewhere around 3% or 4% of federal taxes.

So half of americans pay almost nothing in taxes and yet are able to influence tax policy.

That is actually a rather dangerous situation to be in....

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

If everyone paid something into taxes there would be more desire to control taxes.
 
  2008-05-28 09:46:31 AM
dottedmint: The bottom 50% pay somewhere around 3% or 4% of federal taxes.

As a middle class person I would want the shift some of the tax burden on them too, although through bad luck or health problems I could end up poor alot easier than I could end up fabulously wealthy.

I don't give a fark where the tax burden goes just so long as I don't have to pay it. Taxes are money and money is business and when it comes to business you don't do what is "fair" to help your competition, you try and get it all. That is exactly how the "ruling class" looks at it all while the rubes in the middle class talk about what is "fair".
 
  2008-05-28 09:38:24 PM
Headso "I don't give a fark where the tax burden goes just so long as I don't have to pay it. Taxes are money and money is business and when it comes to business you don't do what is "fair" to help your competition, you try and get it all. That is exactly how the "ruling class" looks at it all while the rubes in the middle class talk about what is "fair"."

So the "ruling class" trys to "get it all" .....

Um....

Isn't that what you are talking about yourself????

You don't care where the taxes come from as long as you "don't have to pay it".

I'm not advocating that the "ruling class" not pay anything or even pay a lower rate.

I just feel a democracy is alot healthier if everyone pays into our taxes.

Someone who makes 30k would pay substantially less than someone who makes 100k.
 
  2008-05-29 10:16:43 AM
dottedmint: The bottom 50% pay somewhere around 3% or 4% of federal taxes.

So half of americans pay almost nothing in taxes and yet are able to influence tax policy.


Aren't you interpreting these stats in a rather skewed manner?

Saying they pay almost nothing in taxes is not accurate when we look at the proportion of their individual incomes that measly 3-4% represents.

For the sake of argument, say a dudeA makes 2 bucks a year and has to pay 2 bucks in taxes, while dudeB makes 1 million bucks and has to pay 200 bucks in taxes...
This means dudeB payed 99% of the taxes while dudeA payed 1% of them. But to the individual, dudeB payed an insignifificant fraction of his income while dudeA payed EVERYTHING in taxes.

So to take this particular argument of yours to its end, you have to have only the rich influencing tax policy simply because the poor cannot possibly contribute what you consider to be a significant enough portion of the tax burden, even if they were to give away every. single. penny. of their income.
 
  2008-05-29 11:45:19 AM
Thorndyke Barnhard "Aren't you interpreting these stats in a rather skewed manner?"

Not really.

You are the one skewing the stats when you use the "argument" of "dudeA makes 2 bucks a year and has to pay 2 bucks in taxes, while dudeB makes 1 million bucks and has to pay 200 bucks in taxes..."

Comparing someone who makes "2 bucks a year" to people in the bottom 50% of tax payers is more than just a bit "skewed".

"But to the individual, dudeB payed an insignifificant fraction of his income while dudeA payed EVERYTHING in taxes."

That would be one of the reasons I like the idea of everyone paying the same fraction of their income. I don't think anyone (rich or poor) should pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes.

IF the upper 50% of tax payers and the lower 50% of tax payers each paid the same rate in taxes (We've been saying 15% up to this point) the upper 50% would pay more in taxes and would still pay a bigger percentage of the tax burden than the bottom 50% of tax payers but things would not be as "skewed" as they are now with the bottom 50% only paying 3% or 4% of federal taxes.
 
  2008-05-29 12:46:00 PM
dottedmint:

You are the one skewing the stats when you use the "argument" of "dudeA makes 2 bucks a year and has to pay 2 bucks in taxes, while dudeB makes 1 million bucks and has to pay 200 bucks in taxes..."

Comparing someone who makes "2 bucks a year" to people in the bottom 50% of tax payers is more than just a bit "skewed".


Analogy and thought experiments are meant to illustrate the underlying principles of a given concept to their logical end by providing different context so that the principles may be highlighted by virtue of their being the main remaining common element.

An analogy is not meant to rattle off particulars like stats so, no, I am not the one skewing stats.


That would be one of the reasons I like the idea of everyone paying the same fraction of their income. I don't think anyone (rich or poor) should pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes.

IF the upper 50% of tax payers and the lower 50% of tax payers each paid the same rate in taxes (We've been saying 15% up to this point) the upper 50% would pay more in taxes and would still pay a bigger percentage of the tax burden than the bottom 50% of tax payers but things would not be as "skewed" as they are now with the bottom 50% only paying 3% or 4% of federal taxes.


You seem to have completely missed my point. My point was that your argument about the relative small percentage payed by the poor of the overal federal tax is a dead end since, no matter what, the end result is smaller proportion of the taxes being payed by the poor whether they pay the same percentage (15% if you like) or they pay an even bigger percentage (such as EVERYTHING % in some hypothetical cases of the poorest). Basically what I'm saying is that your 3-4% percent argument is irrelevant since it doesn't in fact get remedied by your main point: the flat tax.

/btw, this might interest you. :) (not a RR)
 
  2008-05-29 04:51:31 PM
Interesting TB

I actually feel I got you point just fine.

The problem is that it was never my point to suggest that only if everyone pays an equal amount of the tax burden would it be fair.

I suppose I should have been a bit more careful when I posted that comment to try to limit any confusions.

Obviously the bottom 50% is going to pay a smaller portion of the tax burden (even with a flat tax) and I never meant to suggest that they should pay an equal amount of the tax burden.

In any case I feel this quote does a better job of expressing my concerns.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Oh...

And thanks for the link.....

But I use quotation marks for the most part when I want to quote what people say.

I don't think too many of my quotation marks are unnecessary.
 
  2008-05-30 01:20:50 AM
does anyone know anything about the right wing blogs saying obamas uncle was actually in the navy and not the army? meaning he couldn't have liberated any concentration camps?

I can't find any actual facts on it.
 
  2008-05-30 05:09:04 AM
never mind
 
  2008-05-31 02:48:46 PM
dottedmint: They most likely have stretched their budgets too far. They are living as if they make 200k while they only make 150k. And yet when someone who makes 30k lives as if they make 40k we are supposed to feel sorry for them. When someone who makes 30k stretches their budget too far we are supposed to give them a break instead of saying they should live within their means.

"Of course we should all make better choices. Not the issue."

Actually that is part of the issue.

Most people (beit someone who makes 30k or someone who makes 150k) stretch their budgets too far. They complain that they can't make ends meet, that they are struggling, that life is not fair and yet if you look at how they spend their money you will see that poor choices is what gets them in the situations that they are in.


It's another one of your red herrings. The "issue" is that under a flat tax, higher income brackets have more money to keep than the lower ones.

Take it up a few notches. Say you make a million a year. You only pay 15%. How is that fair? Your tax is a mere pittance at that rate.

That's been my point all along, and it's none of your business to insinuate how I should spend my money. It's simply your opinion, and it relates to nothing in this conversation. You're simply trying to stick it to the person making less, trying to make them feel guilty about improving their lives because somehow they haven't earned the "privilege."

And no, I have no sympathy for anyone making whining about their financial problems while making 150K. At that kind of income level, they have the means to fix whatever problems they have, even if they do go into debt doing it.

At 30K, my options are far more limited.
 
  2008-05-31 09:15:08 PM
"Say you make a million a year. You only pay 15%. How is that fair? Your tax is a mere pittance at that rate."

"A mere pittance"
?????

So someone who makes one million would pay $150,000 in taxes.

You consider that a "pittance"?!?!?!?!

While you would pay $4,500 in taxes.

So the person making 1 mil would pay 33.33% more than you would.

Of course this means that he also made 33.33% more than you did.

And he would end up with 33.33% more than you after you both paid your taxes.

In any case $150,000 in taxes would hardly be a "pittance" to the person making only $30,000.

"That's been my point all along, and it's none of your business to insinuate how I should spend my money. It's simply your opinion, and it relates to nothing in this conversation."

Oh really????

So when I say that even though I make $1mil it would be hard for me to afford to pay more than $150,000 in taxes it would be none of your business to tell me how I should or should not spend my money.

Sorry Whidbey but it sure sounds like you are being a hypocrit here.

I can't tell you that you are living beyond your means but you can tell me that I am living beyond my means.

"You're simply trying to stick it to the person making less,"

We've been over this before. I'm not trying to stick it to anyone. I support everyone paying the same rate in taxes.

"trying to make them feel guilty about improving their lives because somehow they haven't earned the "privilege.""

There is nothing wrong with people trying to improve their lives.

But explain to me why someone should have the "privilege" to live beyond their means and then have the government (via those of us who do not live beyond our means) come along and basically bail them out?

"At that kind of income level, they have the means to fix whatever problems they have, even if they do go into debt doing it."

Actually your options at 30k are not as limited as you want to suggest either.

Remember, I have been there.

Of course it helps if you don't get yourself into the trouble to start.
 
  2008-06-01 03:30:53 PM
Leave it to you to defend someone making 10 million dollars, dottedmint. Do you really love money that much? More than people?

So someone who makes one million would pay $150,000 in taxes.

You consider that a "pittance"?!?!?!?!


YEah. When they get to keep MILLIONS. 150K is a blink of the eye in comparison.

So when I say that even though I make $1mil it would be hard for me to afford to pay more than $150,000 in taxes it would be none of your business to tell me how I should or should not spend my money.

No, I would LAUGH at you for daring to make such a ridiculous statement. I don't care where how you spend your money, but you're not HURTING. You would be lying if you said you were.

See, I picked that example as an exaggeration, and you viciously defend it. You really believe that the rich deserve that kind of privilege, don't you?

And you didn't get it the first time when I pointed out that making everyone pay the same percentage hurts the lower income earners. The upper classes can absorb the tax, they MAKE more. The lower classes do not.

You keep ignoring this, or plying the topic with red herrings like "live within your means."

But explain to me why someone should have the "privilege" to live beyond their means and then have the government (via those of us who do not live beyond our means) come along and basically bail them out?

What "privilege" is that? And sorry, but paying a lower tax rate (or none at all) is not being "bailed out by the government."

Actually your options at 30k are not as limited as you want to suggest either.
Remember, I have been there.


I'm doubting that, and if you really have been poor, you've all but forgotten the reality of what it means to struggle when you really don't have enough to do what you want and what you need.

All I'm seeing out of your arguments is an unhealthy tendency to make sure the rich more than benefit from the tax system, and that you don't believe they have any obligation to be taxed higher than middle-class people: in your mind, they've EARNED their aristocracy.

You do know that part of the reason that the 16th Amendment was created was to tax the rich and big business? The Federal Income Tax is a tax on wealth. And it should stay that way.
 
  2008-06-01 05:27:07 PM
"YEah. When they get to keep MILLIONS. 150K is a blink of the eye in comparison."

Hello????

Whidbey....

The person who pays $150,000 in taxes makes $1 million.... NOT $10 mil.

It seems like you keep want to change the standard....

Now.....

Someone who makes $10mil would have to pay $1.5mil in taxes.

And that of course would be 333.33% more than you would pay at $30,000.

And that would not be enough for you???

How much should the person making $10mil pay in taxes?

the person making $1mil?

the person making $100,000?

Bill Gates should have to pay how much in taxes???

"The upper classes can absorb the tax, they MAKE more. The lower classes do not."

Um... That would be why it is important that people live within their means.

"I'm doubting that, and if you really have been poor, you've all but forgotten the reality of what it means to struggle when you really don't have enough to do what you want and what you need."

You keep setting me up here.....

I have nothing against someone making $30k spending their money on what they "need".

But that is where the problem is. Far too many americans spend their money on far more things that they don't really "need" and this is why they have a hard time making ends meet.

If someone making $30k ONLY spent their money on what they NEED they would not be struggling as much as they are now.

And for the record....

I can't buy everything that I "want"....

I have to spend my money on what I "need" first and then decide what (if any) extras I want to spend my money on.

"....and that you don't believe they have any obligation to be taxed higher than middle-class people: in your mind, they've EARNED their aristocracy."

As I have pointed out someone who makes $1mil would be taxed over 33 TIMES as much as someone who makes $30k. So they do get taxed higher than the middle-class.

Who "earned" the wealth that Bill Gates has?

Didn't Bill Gates earn that wealth?

"You do know that part of the reason that the 16th Amendment was created was to tax the rich and big business? The Federal Income Tax is a tax on wealth. And it should stay that way."

Ah... Not exactly.

The 16th is a tax on income. Not wealth.

And I understand that the last thing that you would want is for more Americans to get wealthy.

That would just be terrible....
 
  2008-06-01 10:07:29 PM
BTW....

Whidbey...

What percentage of their income does a person making $30,000 have to pay in taxes according to the 2008 marginal tax bracket?

According to what I found a person making $30,000 pays 15% in taxes.

Yep Whidbey 15%.....

Imagine my surprise...

2008 Tax Brackets
Tax Rate ---Single -----------------Married Filing Jointly
10% -------Not over $8,025 --------Not over $16,050
15% -------$8,025 - $32,550 -------$16,050 - $65,100
25% -------$32,550 - $78,850 ------$65,100 - $131,450
28% -------$78,850 - $164,550 -----$131,450 - $200,300
33% -------$164,550 - $357,700-----$200,300 - $357,700
35% -------Over $357,700-----------Over $357,700


So someone making $35k would have to pay a rate of 25%. ($8,750) IF my flat tax was passed that person making $35k would have to pay ($5,250). This would save that person $3,500. But it would be wrong to save that person $3,500. Your tax system would be so much better. Right?


I'm curious....

What would your tax bracket look like?
 
  2008-06-02 03:27:13 PM
dottedmint: "The upper classes can absorb the tax, they MAKE more. The lower classes do not."

Um... That would be why it is important that people live within their means.


You keep bringing that up. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not going to discuss it. The issue is allowing the middle class to KEEP more of their money. It's none of you business what they spend it on.

So, keep throwing that red herring, and you're going to get the same answer. I am not interested in your lecture to the middle class. It has nothing to DO with whether we should be giving middle class people a break.

As I have pointed out someone who makes $1mil would be taxed over 33 TIMES as much as someone who makes $30k. So they do get taxed higher than the middle-class.

And as you conveniently keep FORGETTING, they still end up keeping a lot more money than someone making 30K.

Seriously. Why do you keep bringing this up? This part of the discussion is OVER. Accept it.

So someone making $35k would have to pay a rate of 25%. ($8,750) IF my flat tax was passed that person making $35k would have to pay ($5,250). This would save that person $3,500. But it would be wrong to save that person $3,500. Your tax system would be so much better. Right?


Your system still benefits the rich and upper classes more than it does the middle class. That's my problem with it. I don't care about your "savings." The rich are still making off like a bandit under your proposal.


What would your tax bracket look like?


And once again, like a broken record, because you can't accept it, I am in favor of the current system, with a massive cut for the middle class. I am favor of incentives to buy real estate and lower interest rates on credit and loans.

I am not in favor of continuing to make the rich richer, as all of your examples do.
 
  2008-06-06 08:10:20 PM
I'm back.

PC decided to go on strike.

Isn't technology wonderful?

Now.....

Back to our little 'back and forth'...

First of all.....

People living within or not within their means has everything to do with this debate.

I have nothing against helping people but when those people spend alot of their money on things that they hardly need I have to question how much "help" they really need.

"And as you conveniently keep FORGETTING, they still end up keeping a lot more money than someone making 30K."

Talk about a red herring Whidbey.

Of course someone making $100k is going to have more than someone making $30k.

Should they have less????

As I pointed out before a person making $1mil makes 33.33% more than someone who makes $30k. That person also would pay 33.33% more in taxes than the person making $30k. And yes after taxes that person would still have 33.33% more than the person making $30k.

And that would be bad why???

Ya see Whidbey...

I am interested in trying to make everyone richer.

You on the other hand want to punish people who make more than you.

You have no interest in fairness....

You are just looking for punishment.....
 
  2008-06-07 12:19:08 AM
dottedment, you might want to change your percent signs to multiplication signs. With that your idea holds true.
 
  2008-06-07 12:19:52 PM
Oops...

My mistake....

A person making $1mil makes 33.33 TIMES as much as someone who makes $30k. That person also would pay 33.33 TIMES as much in taxes than the person making $30k. And yes after taxes that person would still have 33.33 TIMES as much as the person making $30k.

I suppose technically it would be more like 33.333333 TIMES as much...

In fairness I think everyone knew what I meant....

Anyone have a new topic they would like to bring up???

Anyone????
 
  2008-06-07 07:33:22 PM
dottedmint: I am interested in trying to make everyone richer.

No, you're really not. You're afraid of challenging the class structure in America.

You on the other hand want to punish people who make more than you.

I am concerned that 1% of this country controls a 1/3rd of its wealth. You are not.

You have no interest in fairness....

And I've stated time and again how a flat tax is not "fair" to anyone but who makes the most.

You are just looking for punishment.....

And what's more, we're fighting amongst ourselves instead of agreeing on what's wrong with the staus quo.

Anyone have a new topic they would like to bring up???

If you're bored arguing it, just say so. Personally, I don't think you've learned enough to move beyond it.

Which again, is my cue to biatch about how few people come in here. I'm the only one here striking at Goliath. There are so many many Farkers I could think of that would shred your arguments. I really I were better informed to do such work.

But I do know that supporting the current "rich own everything/the rest work for them" system is bunk. And needs to be changed. Hopefully within the current system before violent revolution makes up our minds for us.
 
  2008-06-07 08:54:21 PM
Oh come on Whidbey....

"No, you're really not. You're afraid of challenging the class structure in America."

I would like to see EVERYONE be able to keep more of their own money.

I think that we (as a government) spend far too much of our money.

And as far as the "class structure in America" goes, nothing that you have proposed will do anything to somehow end the "class structure in America".

You want to tax the rich more...

Fine....

They will still be substantially richer than people making $30k.

There will still be a "class structure in America".

You cannot get rid of that.

"I am concerned that 1% of this country controls a 1/3rd of its wealth. You are not."

1. Why shouldn't they have that?

2. Instead of taking their wealth from them why don't you encourage everyone else to increase their own wealth?

3. As I said before you are only interested in punishing those people.

"And I've stated time and again how a flat tax is not "fair" to anyone but who makes the most."

And obviously you and I have different ideas of what is or is not "fair".

I feel that everyone paying the same rate is the fairest way of dealing with our tax system.

The more people make the more they pay in taxes...

"And what's more, we're fighting amongst ourselves instead of agreeing on what's wrong with the staus quo. "

And I forget at what points have we agreed....

"If you're bored arguing it, just say so. Personally, I don't think you've learned enough to move beyond it. "

It's not that I'm bored. I just figure if it is just you and I we have gone back and forth enough that there is nothing more either of us can say.

You want to punish those who make more than you.

I want everyone to pay the same rate. A rate (btw) that those making $30k already pay even though you had said there was no way that people making $30k could afford to pay.

I'd even be willing to say that the rate could be lower than 15%... perhaps 12%.

If I set the price of my widgets based on how much money people made (the richer you are the more expensive my widget would cost you) I would go to jail.

That is using the same logic as you use when you say the rich should pay more in taxes. They can afford to pay more....

"I'm the only one here striking at Goliath."

WOW Whhidbey....

Goliath....

I'm flattered....

"But I do know that supporting the current "rich own everything/the rest work for them" system is bunk."

Bunk????

Right...

The working class are supposed to work for who exactly?

The poor?

Other working class?

Or perhaps...

People who make more money than they do???

We've been over that berfore....

People almost always work for other people who make more money than they do.

Rich people hire others to work for them to try to make them more money.

Why is that bad?

"Hopefully within the current system before violent revolution makes up our minds for us."

"violent revolution"
....

Please Whidbey....

There is not going to be "violent revolution"....

If you think there is more that we can say about this issue...

Fine.

I just feel we have said all that can be said....
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report