Stop trying to justify your socialist views, and stop being lazy.
Also stop trying to leech off of rich people; they keep the economy, and you just be happy they hire you to do their work. They’re keeping this economy going, don’t you forget it. I’m gonna spend my money on Ferraris, diamonds, and hookers. If you’re starving, don’t ask me for $$$, go get a job.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > magicskyfairy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > IT’S MAH MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AND > USE > > IT > > > FOR OTHER PEOPLE OR MY COUNTRY!?! THAT IS > > INCOME > > > REDISTRIBUTION! YOU ARE SOCIALISTS! > > > > Now this is pure selfish on your part. > > > > Everyone who benefits from the government’s > social > > goods such as defense, police, etc, should pay > > into it. > > > > What’s unfair and socialist is someone doesn’t > pay > > any federal tax, while others pay as high as > 40%. > > > Those that pay far more have far more to protect > and far more to lose. In fact, a large portion of > the people you deride as paying nothing are the > ones who really don’t have much to lose to begin > with. They have fewer houses, so they depend less > on fire departments. They travel far less, so > they usually don’t use roads much. Police, > probably, but that’s for the benefit of society at > large. > > So what do you advocate? > > Trickle down econ. has failed, utterly. time to > move back to what was better. I am done with all my trades today. So let’s spend some time on your arguments. 1. Houses, the more houses you have, the more property tax you pay, which goes to support local government services, fire, police, etc. 2. Use of road, the more you drive, the more gas surchage you pay. The surcharges are specifically for road repairs. The bottom line, rich poeple who supposedly use more public goods, paid for them already. That’s even true in a flat tax rate case as they pay more $$$ already, not to mention in a progressive tax rate case.
^ exactly, rich people are the only people doing anything worthwhile in this country, and everyone else is just taking a free ride on their coat tails. Instead of complaining, get back to work
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Those that pay far more have far more to protect > and far more to lose. In fact, a large portion of > the people you deride as paying nothing are the > ones who really don’t have much to lose to begin > with. They have fewer houses, so they depend less > on fire departments. They travel far less, so > they usually don’t use roads much. Police, > probably, but that’s for the benefit of society at > large. > You say they don’t have much to lose to begin with, but that doesn’t mean they value what they have any less than the guy who has ten times more stuff to lose. Do you think “far less” guy is going to be less upset than “far more” guy if his house burns down? It’s not like he’s going to sit there thinking “Hey, it could have been worse. I could have lost a $1MM mansion instead of my $125k rancher.”
AF needs an “ignore user” option.
I do want to make clear that I DON’T support the simplistic view: “Hey, I want something, let’s go force the rich to give it to us.” Sometimes it’s easy to paint “tax the rich” as that. My views are predicated on two principles/ideas: 1) The first is a general principle, that extreme inequalities of wealth undermine the effectiveness of both a) free markets, and b) democratic politics. Part of the concern is that when the wealthy and the poor live in worlds that have essentially zero overlap, free markets stop having the efficient qualities that make them desirable: because markets start responding only to the segment of society with any purchasing power, and democracy becomes essentially meaningless, because voters elect representatives who, once in office are then basically bribed by the oligarchy. So my concerns about inequality are only partly about “social justice” (I do have a humanitarian side), but they are also (and actually more) about the effectiveness of key American institutions: representative democracy and more-or-less free markets. 2) The second is just an observation, which is that the source of much of the recently created wealth is linked to the same processes and policies and financial instruments that created the financial crisis. So everyone’s hands are dirty here, and everyone has to suffer… for the wealthy, it’s greater taxes. For the poor, it’s greater unemployment and income insecurity. For the middle class, it’s income insecurity, and realizing that maybe you can’t retire, or send your kids to college. But “I want nice stuff, let’s get the rich to give it to me.” No, I do think one needs to work for nice stuff. But it is important to maintain an environment where genuine work is rewarded, and particularly for people who are further down on the income scale.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AF needs an “ignore user” option. Interesting… it used to have this… It’s disappeared.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What’s unfair and socialist is someone doesn’t pay > any federal tax, while others pay as high as 40%. I hate this argument. It is so intellectually dishonest. Why is a dollar taxed from payroll taxes not worth as much as a dollar from income taxes? How is even remotely acceptable to ignore some taxes and focus solely on income taxes?
Consumption tax. Seriously. I don’t care if it’s mildly regressive. If people want to spend money, they get taxed. If people want to save their money, it’s tax free. And, we’d get to abolish the IRS.
lol it’s not ‘mildly’ regressive. It is unarguably regressive. A VAT is considered good in addition to a progressive income tax system and I don’t know of any developed countries other than America without one. A VAT by itself with no income tax would be brutally unfair.
> 1. Houses, the more houses you have, the more > property tax you pay, which goes to support local > government services, fire, police, etc. > > 2. Use of road, the more you drive, the more gas > surchage you pay. The surcharges are specifically > for road repairs. > > The bottom line, rich poeple who supposedly use > more public goods, paid for them already. That’s > even true in a flat tax rate case as they pay more > $$$ already, not to mention in a progressive tax > rate case. 1. Other taxes support fire, police…etc, not just property. In that, munis get money from the state and states get some from federal. Further, interstate services are key, including defense, CIA, FBI…etc, others, such as the FAA, EPA, FDA…etc are key to the overall well being of the environment and the people. Having a myriad of state regulations would make us nothing more than a worse-off Europe. 2. But gas surcharges aren’t specifically for road repairs, as road repairs do not pay the entire cost on a local/state level, nor do they pay the entire cost on a federal/interstate level. The fact of the matter is that the wealthy pay a far lower effective tax rate, since almost all of the loopholes benefit them exclusively. Furthermore, they benefit from a CG tax system that doesn’t treat CG as income, but rather a separate tax rate. Finally, the marginal taxes they pay are far less punishing than the marginal tax rates of an average person, being rich (current income) and wealthy (stored income) isolates you from the costs. This is especially true for consumptive taxes and other expenses for core goods. It’s also why a flat tax or even a spending tax is ridiculous.