A question for Republicans

[ABikerSailor]

No, because the government does not have rights to anything. It is created by the people to provide the services the people want it providing. And it the people, not the government, who decide on a fair way to finance the government services.

So make no mistake, it is not the government versus the people. It is those among us who want the rich and successful to give back more versus those those thinking that those less talented and less successful should left to take care of themselves.

You dictate well. The only problem I see that contradicts your prognosis is Governments addiction to Usurpation.

That is why we have the democracy -- specifically to address that problem.

You mean........that's why we HAD a democracy.

Currently, our government is taken over by lobbyists. Apparently, it's becoming the best government money can buy.

 

[ilia25]

Is 13% of 25,000 dollars less than 13% of 2.5 million dollars? With withholding, who's going to notice? Just withhold the fat 13% and let them keep the rest. Sounds very fair to me if you tax income.

Flat tax does not address the issue of inequality. Inequality is only good to the extent that it motivates people to work harder. Beyond that it is bad for society as a whole (and for the rich people if they know what's good for them).

Flat tax creates too much of inequality. There are studies that suggest that the optimal top marginal tax rate should be 70%. Optimal means less inequality with little impact on motivation.

Time to do some Fisk Management.



Inequality of achievement is not an issue.

Yes it is. Why the society has to reward a hard working lawyer with 100 times bigger income than a single mom working two low paying jobs?

You have no right to anyone elses wealth, labor, skill, time unless they choose to give it.

The high living standards that the rich people enjoy are not "theirs" by nature or some divine rights. It is a reward that the society gives them for some or other reason. And it is the society that decides what should be rewarded and what would be the size of the reward.

And this is not slavery -- if you don't like how society threats you, you are free to take your chances on an inhabited island.

That how any society is whether you like it or not. The only thing that matter is HOW a society makes those reward decisions. That is why we have a democracy, so we can discuss these matters and make sure they are made in the benefit of most of the people, not just a few crooks or bullies.

Bullshit. Abuse of power is bad.

I know, and that is why we have the democracy.

You are trying to paint the government as an evil on an imperfect force that is trying mess with what you see as the "natural order" of things. And that is wrong -- there is NO natural order. A society can have any number of different structures -- what matters is who decide what structure is appropriate.

The fact that someone uses their power for the betterment of society BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL is not. I don't hear you bitching about Bill Gates spending billions on his foundation to help people.

Sure, and if every rich guy would be like Bill Gates, than flat taxes would probably work. But that is not the case.

And wealth makes evil, does it not?

No, it is not. It is only evil if it is created at the expense of others.

Progressive taxes have been shown throughout history to be most unfair.

Yet all advanced countries use it.

There are studies that suggest that the optimal top marginal tax rate should be 70%.

Ever hear of the Laffer Curve? That is a much more accurate way of looking at what 'optimal' is. It sure as fuck isn't 70%.

You sure as fuck cannot substantiate that (but I was talking about 70% top marginal rate, the average rate should be less than that).

Also, whatever the the Laffer Curve is, I don't think that the goal is maximizing the tax revenue. The government should collect just enough taxes to provide the service that the people want it providing.

And redistribution of wealth is not the goal here either. It is beneficial only to the extent that it lifts the living standards of a median household (or some similar criteria).

 

[Oldstyle]

Lowering the capital gains taxes encourages people to invest more of their money.

Not entirely true. What encourages people to invest is the return they get on that investment.

Think about what you posted, Don't...

If someone makes a hundred dollars return on their investment but that profit is taxed at 10% then they would make $90. If it is taxed at 20% then they would make $80. So tell me again that a lower tax rate for capital gains isn't going to encourage people to invest their money. Come on people...use your heads about this stuff!!!

 

[driveby]

The faggot OP is just another example of being a butthurt moonbat that's jealous of other people's success, nothing to see here......

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes it is. Why the society has to reward a hard working lawyer with 100 times bigger income than a single mom working two low paying jobs?

No, 'society' did not. Individuals have by deciding to PAY lawyers that much for their skills. Do their skills not deserve compensation? How is compensation set? By charging what the market will bear, if you are brave enough to ask for it, and someone's dumb enough to pay it. They don't have to work any cheaper. What does that "poor 2 job man" do that is WORTH more? Why doesn't he do something worth more?

You need to educate yourself on the value of work, skill and time. When I was an independent contractor, I billed by deciding what I was willing to be paid for my time and skill, and then billing for it according to time, taxes and expenses.

The high living standards that the rich people enjoy are not "theirs" by nature or some divine rights.

You're right. They bought it and can afford to pay for it. That's the natural law in which they have a right to live as they see fit.

It is a reward that the society gives them for some or other reason.

Wealth is NOT a reward bequeathed by society at large. It is earned by their effort. Society chose to pay them for what they offered, and got as good a deal as they were foolish enough to make. Caveat Emptor.

And it is the society that decides what should be rewarded and what would be the size of the reward.

Adam Smith called it "The Invisible Hand of the Market". Society is not to picking and choosing winners but vote with their pocketbook.

And this is not slavery -- if you don't like how society threats you, you are free to take your chances on an inhabited island.

Reeally? And people were free to emigrate from the USSR and North Korea, hmmmm? It is slavery the instant you tell someone they MUST give at their own expense to another without any compensation for it is their duty. Birth is not an automatic volunteer to the collective. You say they must provide, you endorse slavery for you will use force to TAKE what you desire, just like a white plantation owner in anti-bellum Dixie. Yassuh Massuh!

That how any society is whether you like it or not. The only thing that matter is HOW a society makes those reward decisions.

Again, society has it's say with it's wallet. To get my vote, give me something I need or want in a manner I enjoy at a price I can afford and am willing to pay.

Jeeze, someone used a lot of borax on your brain.

That is why we have a democracy, so we can discuss these matters and make sure they are made in the benefit of most of the people, not just a few crooks or bullies.

I know, and that is why we have the democracy.

Democracy does not have anything to do with debate. You want crooks and bullies in charge, give all power to government, and bullies and crooks will be there shortly after. Too bad that process started in 1902, so you're late to this game. We don't have a true democracy either. We have a democratic representative republic. Simple majorities are dangerous and our founding fathers knew this. This is why we have vertical and horizontal checks and balances to prevent mob rule and minority rule and slow down the pace of creeping totalitarianism that has almost swallowed us whole now.

Never forget that democracy can be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

You are trying to paint the government as an evil on an imperfect force that is trying mess with what you see as the "natural order" of things.

And you're promoting pollyanna pie eyed bullshit that government is NOT an imperfect often evil force that must be distrusted and often rebuked by the governed. Have you ever READ the founding fathers or the history of what went on till then to CAUSE the Revolution? Smells like you were taught from the Tory side of the coin, dreaming for the return of the king.

And that is wrong -- there is NO natural order. A society can have any number of different structures -- what matters is who decide what structure is appropriate.

And American culture dictates not a caste structure as you liberals love, but one of social and economic mobility both up and down based on your choices, skill, luck and circumstances merit. If you don't like something, work to fix something. Bitching is an option, but a pretty pathetic one. Nobody owes you anything.

No, it is not. It is only evil if it is created at the expense of others.

The laws against that have been on the books for over 200 years. They're called theft and fraud, dumbass.

Yet all advanced countries use it.

Russia went to a flat tax in the early 1990's and saw an economic boom that dwarfed the previous century for them. They are still trying to come to grips with it.

You sure as fuck cannot substantiate that (but I was talking about 70% top marginal rate, the average rate should be less than that).

Nor can you. So the fuck what? When the top rate was up around there, under Carter, millionaires hid their money in europe and other places the government couldn't touch. When Reagan dropped it, we experienced a boom that took till 2001 to slow down and finally come to a crashing halt with the bubbles that occurred due to government interference in the market.

Also, whatever the the Laffer Curve is, I don't think that the goal is maximizing the tax revenue.

Actually, dumbass, it is precisely what it models. Thanks for selfpwning.

The government should collect just enough taxes to provide the service that the people want it providing.

When the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the public fund, the republic is quickly replaced with tyranny.

Government should not PROVIDE for the people, that is NOT it's purpose you marxist moron. It should PROTECT the people from threats internal and external. It should regulate to make sure the rules are applied equally to all. It should find the most equitable way to make whole those who have been wronged and punish those who violate the law.

And redistribution of wealth is not the goal here either.

Bullshit. You said it yourself. Society gives you your reward, but have forgotten to mention (more like avoided passionately) what that criterion is though it is heavily implied it would be politically based.

It is beneficial only to the extent that it lifts the living standards of a median household (or some similar criteria).

So the only full citizens are the middle class, eh? The rich are second class for they must support the poor who are a special protected class. Of course, you'd exempt your sanctimonious ass due to your superior enlightenment. We know how the game works for you good partyline types. We work, you party.

Seig heil to you too, sport.

 

[skookerasbil]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Once again you dumb ass, they pay the LEGAL rates based on what their income sources are. I don't see you screaming for all the rich Liberals to pay extra.

Retired bro......he's far beyond anything resembling hope........a one demensional thinker. Go over to the Environmental Forums........he's in there all the time posting up k00k thread after k00k thread. A real bomb thrower.


These nutters who navigate the world in an angry hyper-jealous state will never get out of it............

 

[ilia25]

Yes it is. Why the society has to reward a hard working lawyer with 100 times bigger income than a single mom working two low paying jobs?

No, 'society' did not. Individuals have by deciding to PAY lawyers that much for their skills.

And why those individuals decide to pay the lawyer for its hard work instead of kicking only half of his teeth out? Because they themselves benefit from living in a society, by the society rules. The lawyer owes his good living to his hard work, but it is the society rules that enable the conversion of the latter to the former.

And that is why the democracy has everything to do with this debate! Democracy is the best way to establish the rules that would benefit the majority of people, not just a little few.

We know from the past experience that those rules should be based on a free-market economy. But we also know that it creates too much of inequality, that is why there must be some redistribution of income -- you yourself admitted that by supporting the flat tax, instead of a fee based government services.

It is beneficial only to the extent that it lifts the living standards of a median household (or some similar criteria).

So the only full citizens are the middle class, eh?

No, but they should not be the second class either simply because of some arbitrary rules like "flat tax is the only fair tax", or "a person deserves to keep all his earnings".

 

[Big Fitz]

And why those individuals decide to pay the lawyer for its hard work instead of kicking only half of his teeth out?

First, kill all lawyers, huh? Wow, do I even want to read on if this is what you're devolving into?

Because they themselves benefit from living in a society, by the society rules.

The man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. With the legal system so complex, you must have specialists.

The lawyer owes his good living to his hard work,

Usually yes. Otherwise see the previous statement about the laws regarding theft and fraud.

but it is the society rules that enable the conversion of the latter to the former.

Nonsensical non sequiter.

And that is why the democracy has everything to do with this debate! Democracy is the best way to establish the rules that would benefit the majority of people, not just a little few.

So you're in favor of mob rule then? Remember that when you are voted off the island. Fuck the wisdom of our founders, gimme what I want, right?

We know from the past experience that those rules should be based on a free-market economy.

You don't seem to get that. Note, a free economy is not Lassaiez Faire Economy where the government stays completely out. That's just as stupid as central planning styles.

But we also know that it creates too much of inequality,

Which we also know is not a problem.

that is why there must be some redistribution of income

No. There isn't a reason for redistribution of income. Technically, what the government 'sells' in the broadest terms is the deferment of force for the equal protection of it's citizens from outside threats and their fellow citizens who wish to trammel on their rights to live life as they see fit. You share in the rights, you 'pay' your share of the bill to make it so. If you don't want to, leave. BUT, the problem is that our government is vastly grown beyond it's original framework and violated the constitution because legal fuckwads have found loopholes to use the constitution against itself to enrich themselves and other groups at the expense of the rest of the citizenry.

you yourself admitted that by supporting the flat tax, instead of a fee based government services.

I'd rather return to fees, excise taxes, privatization of all but the constitutionally mandated powers of government and tariffs. But since the income tax is constitutional, the most equitable method is a flat tax rather than a flat amount which is the MOST fair, but also regressive. No government can be completely fair. It can only be as fair as possible.

No, but they should not be the second class either simply because of some arbitrary rules like "flat tax is the only fair tax", or "a person deserves to keep all his earnings"..

They'd be doing better than under the system we currently have. You use more government, you should be paying more for the service... not less or nothing. If we tax earnings, it should be ALL earnings, no exemptions, loopholes or subsidies. You don't get more out than you paid in, and you don't get exempted. This should be applied to all revenue streams, people, businesses, groups and organizations if we want to be truly fair. Make tax day and election day the same day, while eliminating withholding and you will watch responsible government start returning too as people are forced to vote and pay their tax bill at the same time.

Oh but that's too much tough love and personal responsibility for you, isn't it?

 

[ilia25]

And why those individuals decide to pay the lawyer for its hard work instead of kicking only half of his teeth out? Because they themselves benefit from living in a society, by society rules.

First, kill all lawyers, huh? Wow, do I even want to read on if this is what you're devolving into?

LOL, I really don't think that you do! If you don't possess the mental capacity needed to understand the simplest things others are saying -- then I am sure than reading won't be any good for you.

And even if you are pretending you are a moron so you can build a straw man -- my advice would be the same.

 

[Sunshine]

Flat tax does not address the issue of inequality. Inequality is only good to the extent that it motivates people to work harder. Beyond that it is bad for society as a whole (and for the rich people if they know what's good for them).

Flat tax creates too much of inequality. There are studies that suggest that the optimal top marginal tax rate should be 70%. Optimal means less inequality with little impact on motivation.

Time to do some Fisk Management.



Inequality of achievement is not an issue.

Yes it is. Why the society has to reward a hard working lawyer with 100 times bigger income than a single mom working two low paying jobs?



The high living standards that the rich people enjoy are not "theirs" by nature or some divine rights. It is a reward that the society gives them for some or other reason. And it is the society that decides what should be rewarded and what would be the size of the reward.

And this is not slavery -- if you don't like how society threats you, you are free to take your chances on an inhabited island.

That how any society is whether you like it or not. The only thing that matter is HOW a society makes those reward decisions. That is why we have a democracy, so we can discuss these matters and make sure they are made in the benefit of most of the people, not just a few crooks or bullies.



I know, and that is why we have the democracy.

You are trying to paint the government as an evil on an imperfect force that is trying mess with what you see as the "natural order" of things. And that is wrong -- there is NO natural order. A society can have any number of different structures -- what matters is who decide what structure is appropriate.



Sure, and if every rich guy would be like Bill Gates, than flat taxes would probably work. But that is not the case.



No, it is not. It is only evil if it is created at the expense of others.



Yet all advanced countries use it.

There are studies that suggest that the optimal top marginal tax rate should be 70%.

Ever hear of the Laffer Curve? That is a much more accurate way of looking at what 'optimal' is. It sure as fuck isn't 70%.

You sure as fuck cannot substantiate that (but I was talking about 70% top marginal rate, the average rate should be less than that).

Also, whatever the the Laffer Curve is, I don't think that the goal is maximizing the tax revenue. The government should collect just enough taxes to provide the service that the people want it providing.

And redistribution of wealth is not the goal here either. It is beneficial only to the extent that it lifts the living standards of a median household (or some similar criteria).

There is no national 'pay scale' that says 'society' has to reward anyone for anything. As a widow and single mother of two children I raised alone, I simply will not give the sympathy vote to the single mother with two low paying jobs. She didn't have to have kids, birth control has been around for 40 years, and there is all kinds of money out there for women to go to school these days. I went to both nursing school AND law school with women just like you describe. Working 2 low paying jobs, raising kids alone, AND trying to make something of themselves. So save the bullshit for the barn It won't work on ME.

 

[Twin Fist]

he took his money, that he earned, and paid the top rate on in taxes, and invested it.

if the investment tanks, he gets nothing back

so he took money he ALREADY PAID taxes on, and gambled on another company.

for taking that risk, he makes some profit.

and is still double taxed on the profit.

and you have the gall to think he needs to be taxed MORE than the 45% the first time and the 14% the second time?

Romney doesn't work. He hasn't had a job in years.

And he made $20 million just sitting on his butt.

And paid taxes at a lower rate than you do.

Do you like paying higer taxes so the idle rich can get welfare for the wealthy?

 

[Sunshine]

he took his money, that he earned, and paid the top rate on in taxes, and invested it.

if the investment tanks, he gets nothing back

so he took money he ALREADY PAID taxes on, and gambled on another company.

for taking that risk, he makes some profit.

and is still double taxed on the profit.

and you have the gall to think he needs to be taxed MORE than the 45% the first time and the 14% the second time?

Romney doesn't work. He hasn't had a job in years.

And he made $20 million just sitting on his butt.

And paid taxes at a lower rate than you do.

Do you like paying higer taxes so the idle rich can get welfare for the wealthy?

That's kind of a no brainer. That is the American dream..

 

[Sunshine]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

if they dont work, they dont have income. No income means no income taxes

what you want is a tax on wealth. Just admit it.

Romney doesn't work. He hasn't had a job in years.

And he made $20 million just sitting on his butt.

And paid taxes at a lower rate than you do.

Do you like paying higer taxes so the idle rich can get welfare for the wealthy?

ANd who pays you to sit on YOUR butt and post on the internet all day and night. Just looking at your post statistics show that you do nothing else.

 

[Big Fitz]

And why those individuals decide to pay the lawyer for its hard work instead of kicking only half of his teeth out? Because they themselves benefit from living in a society, by society rules.

First, kill all lawyers, huh? Wow, do I even want to read on if this is what you're devolving into?

LOL, I really don't think that you do! If you don't possess the mental capacity needed to understand the simplest things others are saying -- then I am sure than reading won't be any good for you.

And even if you are pretending you are a moron so you can build a straw man -- my advice would be the same.

You've been providing some of the better fisk fodder lately for me, so I did. Laughing a lot at your catastrophic ignorance.

If you don't possess the mental capacity needed to understand the simplest things others are saying

The scary part is I don't think you understand the consequences or results of anything YOU say. Your continued pied pollyanna statements belay much deep thought or comprehension of repercussions.

And even if you are pretending you are a moron so you can build a straw man -- my advice would be the same.

Strawmen, eh? LOL I suppose your no thought generalizations based on what your teachers in school taught you, rather than your own thinking and analysis by yourself is the way to go.

That's a good little drone. Will you go back to the playground if we give you a participant trophy?

 

[Intense]

You dictate well. The only problem I see that contradicts your prognosis is Governments addiction to Usurpation.

That is why we have the democracy -- specifically to address that problem.

You mean........that's why we HAD a democracy.

Currently, our government is taken over by lobbyists. Apparently, it's becoming the best government money can buy.

More specifically we are a Federalist Republic.

 

[Intense]

Lowering the capital gains taxes encourages people to invest more of their money.

Not entirely true. What encourages people to invest is the return they get on that investment.

Think about what you posted, Don't...

If someone makes a hundred dollars return on their investment but that profit is taxed at 10% then they would make $90. If it is taxed at 20% then they would make $80. So tell me again that a lower tax rate for capital gains isn't going to encourage people to invest their money. Come on people...use your heads about this stuff!!!

So in effect, if you made $100 on an investment, and were taxed at 90% or 70%, that would sit well with you? Considering the risk? Considering Inflation? Hey, let's go out and get Mugged Tonight, it's quicker and more adventurous.

 

[candycorn]

he took his money, that he earned, and paid the top rate on in taxes, and invested it.

if the investment tanks, he gets nothing back

so he took money he ALREADY PAID taxes on, and gambled on another company.

for taking that risk, he makes some profit.

and is still double taxed on the profit.

and you have the gall to think he needs to be taxed MORE than the 45% the first time and the 14% the second time?

That isn't quite the case.

Those are dividends. If he sells the stock, he has to pay a higher rate than 15%. If he just collects dividends, he pays the 15 percent.

 

[Intense]

he took his money, that he earned, and paid the top rate on in taxes, and invested it.

if the investment tanks, he gets nothing back

so he took money he ALREADY PAID taxes on, and gambled on another company.

for taking that risk, he makes some profit.

and is still double taxed on the profit.

and you have the gall to think he needs to be taxed MORE than the 45% the first time and the 14% the second time?

That isn't quite the case.

Those are dividends. If he sells the stock, he has to pay a higher rate than 15%. If he just collects dividends, he pays the 15 percent.

How about Everyone Pays 15%? Pretty Please.

 

[ilia25]

There is no national 'pay scale' that says 'society' has to reward anyone for anything.

But it the society does reward people for their work, and that is why we live in it.

As a widow and single mother of two children I raised alone, I simply will not give the sympathy vote to the single mother with two low paying jobs. She didn't have to have kids, birth control has been around for 40 years, and there is all kinds of money out there for women to go to school these days.

Well, just for the record, those "all kinds of money" is what the rights call "the waste spending", which has to be cut to reduce the deficit. Or they call it redistribution of income, and thus unfair.

But in any case, the simple truth is that everyone can't go Harvard and become a top lawyer. Someone would have to work low paying jobs. Now imagine that for some reasons this is how our market economy works -- most of national income goes to a very few suits holding important jobs, while the wast majority of workers has to share the crumbs that left.

You think that in this case some income redistribution would benefit us? Because if the answer is yes, this is what has been happening in US in the past decades -- middle class jobs disappear. Instead of 10 steel mill jobs paying 60K each, we now have 9 wal-mart or other mcjobs paying 30K each and one suit getting 330K.

And it's not just because of the outsourcing to China. The main driver is automation of the manufacturing (as it has been for long time, read "Player Piano").

So what do you think -- is it all a-okay, or we should do something about it?

 

[Intense]

We Live in Society because We are Social Creatures, whether or not one benefits from that is determined in part by ability, interest, and many other factors. You can't Legislate Providence. Greed, Jealousy, Envy, are All Vices, that one is better off getting counseling on than labeling as Virtues. You are also wrong confusing Greed with Self Interest, confusing Aggressiveness with Assertiveness, too.