Hey Americans! and for the rest too I guess

[Evil Dave]

@NSA
Maybe so.
But the whole tax the rich hinges on one fallacy: That the money will actually go where our representatives say it will go.

The money never goes where they say it will go.

We see this very often close to home on the state level.
For example: Baton Rouge brought in the Casino Boats and said the taxes would go towards our schools and Teacher pay raises.
No such thing.

The federal cutting of funds for New Orleans Levee\'s done by both Bush and Clinton, people were outraged, but the truth is that money was never going to make it to the levee\'s anyway. It hadn\'t in years.

So if they tax the rich more, and the things they said would get done, don\'t get done, then what? Tax the rich some more?
It\'s a viscious cycle. A cycle that generational welfare perpetuates.

I don\'t see it as a need for more tax revenue, I see it as our government needs to be held accountable for the waste of the revenue that they get.

The government should not be allowed to tap more than a fair share from anyone because they are irresponsible with the revenue.

 

[Avelorn]

@Evil Dave: And what to do about it? Don\'t you think we\'ve come quite far. Don\'t you think we can do it better? How was it like 200 years ago ?

I can give a very long argumenation on the need for distributing property and properties. I won\'t, but if anyone think they have a good argument against it, they can write it up and I will answer it.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
@NSA
...
So if they tax the rich more, and the things they said would get done, don\'t get done, then what? Tax the rich some more?
It\'s a viscious cycle. A cycle that generational welfare perpetuates.

The amount of money \"wasted\" on welfare is laughable compared to that wasted on government boondoggles, obsolete or unnecessary defense contracts, graft, corruption and cronyism. Look at how much money the US gov\'t has been pouring into the pockets of companies like Halliburton during the last few years, during the Iraq war. and Halliburton has been caught red-handed squandering it, overbilling and billing for work they never even did. Is that the fault of the poor? The poor who hold NO stocks in Boeing, Macdonnell-Douglas, Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, Exxon? The poor who have NO lobbyists buying $500 lunches for politicians in Washington (or Ottawa)?

If the wealthy demand that government stop wasting their tax dollars, they should start by taking a long, hard look at their stock portfolios, and other wealthy people. Because that is where most of the wasted tax money is going.

The government should not be allowed to tap more than a fair share from anyone...

I don\'t get it. The rich pay more taxes, because they make more money. What is the problem with that?

And Evil Dave... are you a multi-millionaire? Will you ever be one? If not, why the heck are you arguing in their favour and to your own detriment? Most of them sure aren\'t watching YOUR back, they are watching their own, that\'s how thery got rich in the first place.

 

[WeR138]

I AM AGAINST: ( set to the music of Tom T Halls \" I Love\")

Big Corportations stealing workers pensions

People whos only disablility is a lack of motivation getting a free ride

and cat juggling!

Am I dating myself or is there anybody out there that remembers that song?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by No Such Agency
And Evil Dave... are you a multi-millionaire? Will you ever be one? If not, why the heck are you arguing in their favour and to your own detriment? Most of them sure aren\'t watching YOUR back, they are watching their own, that\'s how thery got rich in the first place.

No, and I\'m not Black, Gay, or a woman, but I\'ll fight for their rights, too.
It doesn\'t matter if they are watching my back or not.

Um, they do pay more taxes, generally millions more, they also generally are the ones who keep the economy going by starting/running businesses which hire and employ people, who then in turn pay their taxes.

So cut the corruption and the money is there.
Just electing the Democrats, however, will not stop the corruption, the cronyism or any other evils those \"damn Republicans\" did.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
No, and I\'m not Black, Gay, or a woman, but I\'ll fight for their rights, too.
It doesn\'t matter if they are watching my back or not.

being wealthy is not a right, its a privalege. to compare the \"right\" the rich have to money to civil rights is inappropriate.

Um, they do pay more taxes, generally millions more, they also generally are the ones who keep the economy going by starting/running businesses which hire and employ people, who then in turn pay their taxes.

the rich dont \"keep the economy going,\" the working class does. they made and bought the stuff that the rich benifit from.

So cut the corruption and the money is there.
Just electing the Democrats, however, will not stop the corruption, the cronyism or any other evils those \"damn Republicans\" did.

obveously. i didnt vote dem because i thought they wouldnt be corrupt (or because i vote down party lines). i did it for other reasons - mostly philosophical and environmental. id rather have a good helth care sytem and environment for my great great great grandkids than a massive gass hog of a truck now.

 

[Evil Dave]

Heh, civil rights themselves are a nebulous ideal that exists only because we say they do.
Trying to say which are priveleges and which are rights is just as nebulous.
It\'s mere semantics.

It\'s still taking something from someone else that does not belong to you.

Or does the end justify the means?

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Heh, civil rights themselves are a nebulous ideal that exists only because we say they do.
Trying to say which are priveleges and which are rights is just as nebulous.
It\'s mere semantics.

sure thing then. in that case your concept that the wealthy have some right because of their wealth is just as \"nebulous.\" ive never seen a rich person stand in front of a firehose because of thier tax rates though, and i find the comparison between the two to be laughable, nebulous or not.

It\'s still taking something from someone else that does not belong to you.

our government (we) has the \"right\" to do that, just like it(we) has the right to punish people with the death penalty. eminent domain and such.

Or does the end justify the means?
not always.

frankly, being wealthy is its own reward - you get lots of toys, and you\'re above the law (care to disagree?). i dont think that taking half of a 10 million dollar income is going to put someone in the poor house.

im not advocating raising taxes in any way, i just would like to see more of that tax money go in to american homes than to *corporate* welfare and bombs.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth
frankly, being welthy is its own reward - you get lots of toys, and you\'re above the law (care to disagree?). i dont think that taking half of a 10 million dollar income is going to put someone in the poor house.

No, but it will make them consider going corporate or even living abroad, meaning you get nothing at all.
It\'s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As to the people (or Government) having the right, No. They have the might.
I could go through three pages on this thread, listing cases in which the government has the \"right\" but are ethically, or morally wrong, or even not representative of the people\'s wishes, or in the people\'s best interests.
We saw this very recently in the supreme court decision, that ruled a city could seize someone\'s land in order to sell it to a private devloper, hoping to bring in more revenue.
A decision that had nearly every state in the union rush out and pass laws to prevent exactly that from happening.

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
As to the people (or Government) having the right, No. They have the might.

Just as property is not a right.. it\'s enforced with might. You are correct there are no such thing as human rights, and there is nothing that decides wether we should steal or kill each other either. The conventions we live by are formed by us because we are social beings. Every society will have their winners and looser and if you want a society that end up worse for more people then another comparable society, you are resonsible for that imo. Because letting people deal with thier own issues is also a choice.

What is the difference of leaving someone to die and actually killing that same person? That might be one of the most haunting questions of today.

I think you are overvaluing the importance of wealthy people in the economy today. Without going into details they can act as much as bottlenecks (invested in the wrong kind of technology and sticking with it for example) as motors. And if rich people are those that start companies then it is because they\'re rich. So the argument turns to a circle one.

I don\'t think matters for the argument if you say the state has made the incorrect desicion here or there as it will only be directed at the goverment your under now. It might instead be an argument for reforming the system in a specific way.

 

[Brimshack]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I could go through three pages on this thread, listing cases in which the government has the \"right\" but are ethically, or morally wrong, or even not representative of the people\'s wishes, or in the people\'s best interests.
We saw this very recently in the supreme court decision, that ruled a city could seize someone\'s land in order to sell it to a private devloper, hoping to bring in more revenue.
A decision that had nearly every state in the union rush out and pass laws to prevent exactly that from happening.

It\'s interesting to think about this one. If the court was wrong, it was precisely in failing to stand in the way of the express will of the people. The court didn\'t create this novel variation on eminant domain, it merely produced a decision allowing such an exercise to occur. And that decision was a threat only to the degree that legislatures might act on it. In other words, this aweful decision was aweful precisely to the degree that it constituted a failure of the court to act in precisely the manner that courts are commonly criticized for doing - it failed to thwart the will of the people (as expressed through their elected representatives).

This too was one time that we needed the courts to stand in the way.

 

[vincegamer]

The court acted like an editor.
Someone found a loophole and exploited it.
Someone challenged it to the court.
The court said \"yes, that\'s a mistake all right. But it is not our job to write laws, just to settle arguments over what the written words mean.\"
Legislatures then corrected the loophole.

It is not the part of the court to stand in the way of the will of the people, or to stand for it. Courts do not represent the will of the people. They are usually not elected or subject to removal by voters.

p.s.
For whoever said the money of the rich is their money, look again. Look at your cash. Is it yours? No. It\'s a Federal Reserve Note from the United States of America, signed by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the United States. Our system allows you to have effective control of that amount you have, and to benefit from that control as you wish, but it is yours only because the government of the people says it is yours. If they say it\'s not, then it no longer is yours. We all like ownership so we mutually defend it, but we take it away under certain circumstances too - for instance if you buy drugs and sell them for profit, you have no legal claim on the profit and the government can take it away from you.
You have a right to earn a living, and the government of the people can decide you need to give back some of what you earn to benefit those less fortunate.

 

[philologus]

This is data from the IRS tax year 2004.


Ranked by AGI Threshold of % %paid
Top 1% $328,049 36.89
Top 5% $137,056 57.13
Top 10% $99,112 68.19
Top 25% $60,041 84.86
Top 50% $30,122 96.7
Bottom 50% <$30,122 3.3

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Just so you know I\'m barely in the top 25% After being taxed I bring home VERY close to HALF of what my gross salary is. If it weren\'t for the fact that I contribute 1/6th of my gross pay to charities the picture would be much more bleak. This in a country that declared its independence over taxes.
EDIT: columns didn\'t line up very well when I pasted. The column headers shoudl read
Ranked by AGI
Threshold of %
% paid (of total tax burden in the U.S.)

BTW in 2005 43.3 % of Americans paid $0 income tax.

 

[philologus]

Sorry for the DP.

Originally posted by No Such Agency
philologus - I don\'t think YOU are \"repellent\", I get that you just don\'t want a Canadian type health care system in the US. I\'m not sure why, if you had such poverty as a younger person, you don\'t support something which benefits the poor so greatly... but that is your right to believe. I have some unusual beliefs myself.

However, it might be because I am Canadian and the article writer is directly attacking something which I believe to be one of my country\'s crowning acheivements, but the writer strikes me as terribly mean-spirited and greedy. His only real argument against universal tax-funded health care is that it \"steals from the rich\", yet the rich do not suffer because of the taxes they pay. They are still rich. But the rest of us would suffer much, much more were the system to be abandoned. So he wants to slightly benefit the wealthy... by screwing the non-wealthy. See why I don\'t like him?

I didn\'t think you were indicting me, I\'m not that sensitive. And I understood your point. After your post I chated up one of my Canadian co-workers on the topic. He has had the opportunity to live in both countries and use both systems. His explanation cleared up a few things; I will paraphrase his words:

1. Canada\'s system is very good at keeping people alive. (i.e. emergencies)
2. Canadians asked for the system and it benefits them because in comparison to the US, Canada is a poorer country (his words) less natural resources etc.
3. If one needs what is deemed an unnecessary procedure then the probelms arise (long waits). Likewise with procuring medication.
4. Businesses in Canada enjoy not having to provide benefits.

These were his main points. I am fortunate in getting to work with a lot of people from A LOT of different countries.

 

[supervike]

Yeah, that taxes thing really burns me too...

If you want a FAIR tax, why are we not going with the FLAT tax? Everybody pays the same percentage (15% or whatever the number needs to be)..NO deductions, no loopholes, nothing.

That way the rich still pay more, the poor people pay less...everybody pays thier fair share! Plus it would eliminate the costly and highly ineffective Tax Return system and a majority of the IRS....

Could it be any simplier?

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by supervike
If you want a FAIR tax, why are we not going with the FLAT tax?

Or even better, support the Fair Tax plan.
Basically it\'s a progressive retail tax.
More info at this link

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by supervike
If you want a FAIR tax, why are we not going with the FLAT tax?

Or even better, support the Fair Tax plan.
Basically it\'s a progressive retail tax.
More info at this link

Finally Vince you and I agree on something. The fair tax is the way to go.

 

[vincegamer]

dag nabbit Philo logus!
You made me go back through this entire thread searching for something you and I disagreed on.
The only thing I found was that you would prefer a Republican controlled Senate.

 

[supervike]

So, why retail tax as opposed to just a flat income tax?

It does sound good, but there is this CAVEAT:


\"To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. \"

That sounds like it would go right back to the convoluted mess we have now.

Also...I think a retail tax would actually hurt retailers....Making some things prohibitive to buy because of the percieved higher price.

 

[vincegamer]

I do agree that the perception of higher prices would be a problem.
However, many states manage to get by without an income tax, so it\'s not unprecedented.
A flat tax has the appeal of being easy and understandable.
I would support it if only as a step to the starting point again. You can believe there would simply be a slow roll back to what we have now since tax incentives are the only real way the government has of directing behavior.