Good life style by your standards maybe. But the loss of such revenue may have serious appreciable affects on how they live. Vandalvideoit's literally the difference between three yachts and two yachts. not an appreciative difference. plus, regardless of how you cut it a flat tax would be objectively worse on the lower classes. especially on how they live.
Hillary Clinton says rich don't pay their fair share
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Justification? Because they have the most wealth for taxation.. The radical majority of wealth in the US is held by a select few.. If the Us government did a flat tax it would be highly ineffictive.. Becuase you will be taxing the larger population yes but they have far far far less wealth.. In the end it would lead to budget crisis..VandalvideoAgain, circular argument is circular. "They have more wealth" is not an addequate answer to "Why those with more wealth shuld be taxed more". Also, the budget crisis is a weak argument. Cut government spending.
God forbid Vandal we want a good public education system, roads system, and numerous other things we care about every day.. And I specifically told you why we do it.. Because they hold the majority of the health, that if we used a flat tax we would not be able to fund the many things that the majority of the United States supports. And your going to have to point out where a circular argument was? Because I am not taking ideas of "fair" because its hypcriotical at best to discuss "fair" in capitalism to begin wtih.. Its never fair nor is it moral, hence why there is no reason to discuss it.. The rich get taxed more because they hold the majority of the wealth, a hugely disportionale amount.. If we did a flat tax, it would either lead to the majority getting squeezed entirely too hard, or it would be too low of a % that you would get no where near the funds to support our big military budget, the public school systems, our road systems etc etc.. We are actually one of the lowest taxed nations in the western world..
Maybe she needs to take some basic math classes.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
She portrays the top income earners as people that are dodging taxes or paying nothing. In reality, the vast majority of federal income tax is paid for by the top 10% of income earners. How is that not paying their share? You can always ask them to pay more, but I wouldn't portray them as some kind of opportunistic thieves dodging their responsibilities. Seems to me, she's just lying to the public and trying to generate populist support. Shame she can't discuss the real facts in an intelligent manner.
Even more interesting is that the top 1% accounts for 20% of the gross earnings, but pays 40% of the tax. They're paying double the tax burden. Maybe they could pay more, but how does that correlate to them "not paying their fair share".
Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.
Its not their fair share because they pay the same(taxes) but their larger amount of money amounts to more?(if that makes sense). Its like this if I make $100 and x makes $10,000,000 us both paying 10% means my taxes are $10 and x's taxes are $1,000,000 sure he pays a lot more than me, but what HC is trying to say is that x should pay 15-20% because he can afford it... In reality I would pay 15-20% while X would pay 6-7% because of bush's tax brakes for the rich(not exact). The bottom 40% of people pay almost no income tax. Their percentage paid is close to 0%. The top earners, pay a higher percentage -> the income tax system is progressive. So they more you make the more you pay - both total and percentage wise. Because it is based on income. Reread my example if a man only makes $100 he can't possible afford to pay the same 10% as X. However, X can pay 20% (2million) and still swim around in his money freely. You asked how was it that the rich don't pay their fair share its because they don't "feel" the same blow that the middle and lower middle man does.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Good life style by your standards maybe. But the loss of such revenue may have serious appreciable affects on how they live. Hewkiiit's literally the difference between three yachts and two yachts. not an appreciative difference. plus, regardless of how you cut it a flat tax would be objectively worse on the lower classes. especially on how they live. In your opinion, not an appreciable difference. To a rich person, the difference between three or two yachts may have, in their mind, serious repercussions for how they do business. Why is it that the poor's comfort is more important than the rich's comfort?
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's not always true. Warren Buffett likes to cite the fact that he pays less in taxes percentage wise than his secretary does when he advocates for tax hikes.-Sun_Tzu-He's a special exception. The majority of the money he makes is through the stock market. Capital gains taxes are much lower than wage taxes or earnings taxes. But there's a reason for that - no one would invest if your earnings in the stock market were heavily taxed. There would be no reason to. Besides, no one but Warren Buffet can consistently beat the market. Anyone making a comprabable salary to Buffet - outside of the stock market - would likely pay both massive amounts and percentages to the government. Yes but while Buffett doesn't represent a majority of the wealthy, there are still quite a few people that are living very comfortably through the stock market and are being taxed very little. Add that with the fact that besides the income tax, pretty much ever other tax is a flat, regressive tax (e.g. the payroll tax), and the fact that the effective corporate tax rate in America is among the lowest in the world - the American tax system has been very good to the wealthy in this country, and it hasn't been as good to those who are not so wealthy. I have no problem with people living off the stock market. That's an incredibly risky thing to do and they are contributing to the economy. If anything, they've earned that money. Besides, how could you possibly tax those gains more without compromising investment? Part of the financial crisis today is that people, banks, institutions are not investing. The vast majority of tax that people paying taxes pay is income tax in this country. If 40% of the population is paying no income tax, how can you say that it's been unfair to them? Sales tax is regressive and tends to hit the lower classes the hardest. Property taxes tend to hit the middle class, and income tax tends to hit the wealthy the most. I think it's a very misleading argument that Hillary claims the rich don't pay their share. They do. They could always pay more, but to portray them as freeloaders is erroneous.
Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.Well, regardless of the quality of education, at the end of the day, SOMEONE needs to do the manual labor jobs. Let's see which one society could function better without: stock boys or stock brokers.sonicare
God forbid Vandal we want a good public education system, roads system, and numerous other things we care about every day.. And I specifically told you why we do it.. Because they hold the majority of the health, that if we used a flat tax we would not be able to fund the many things that the majority of the United States supports. And your going to have to point out where a circular argument was? Because I am not taking ideas of "fair" because its hypcriotical at best to discuss "fair" in capitalism to begin wtih.. Its never fair nor is it moral, hence why there is no reason to discuss it.. The rich get taxed more because they hold the majority of the wealth, a hugely disportionale amount.. If we did a flat tax, it would either lead to the majority getting squeezed entirely too hard, or it would be too low of a % that you would get no where near the funds to support our big military budget, the public school systems, our road systems etc etc.. We are actually one of the lowest taxed nations in the western world..sSubZerOoThe circular argument is in the fact that your justification for taxing the more wealthy is that they are more wealthy. That is a circular argument. There isn't anything of worthwhile in that statement. Also, prove to me that the rich would not foster public education systems and roads in an attempt to further their own wealth. Inherent in your argument is the assumption that the rich will not engage in such actions. Prove it.
In your opinion, not an appreciable difference. To a rich person, the difference between three or two yachts may have, in their mind, serious repercussions for how they do business. Why is it that the poor's comfort is more important than the rich's comfort? Vandalvideobecause the poor person's "comfort" is actually "things I need to literally survive" like food, medicine, and rent. the rich person's comfort is just that. luxuries.
[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Good life style by your standards maybe. But the loss of such revenue may have serious appreciable affects on how they live. Vandalvideoit's literally the difference between three yachts and two yachts. not an appreciative difference. plus, regardless of how you cut it a flat tax would be objectively worse on the lower classes. especially on how they live. In your opinion, not an appreciable difference. To a rich person, the difference between three or two yachts may have, in their mind, serious repercussions for how they do business. Why is it that the poor's comfort is more important than the rich's comfort?
They hold a immensely disportionate amount, if we did a entire flat tax.. It will eitehr gather too little money, or it will squeeze the middle and lower class.. ITs not about the upper class being wealthy, its about the wealth disparity between the middle and upper class.. A select few in the United States still hold the majority of wealth..
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]In your opinion, not an appreciable difference. To a rich person, the difference between three or two yachts may have, in their mind, serious repercussions for how they do business. Why is it that the poor's comfort is more important than the rich's comfort? Hewkiibecause the poor person's "comfort" is actually "things I need to literally survive" like food, medicine, and rent. the rich person's comfort is just that. luxuries. And why should luxuries be of less importance than the survival of the poor? Why should the rich suffer luxuries just so the poor can survive? Also, prove that the poor could not survive in such a system.
In your opinion, not an appreciable difference. To a rich person, the difference between three or two yachts may have, in their mind, serious repercussions for how they do business. Why is it that the poor's comfort is more important than the rich's comfort?[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Hewkii"] it's literally the difference between three yachts and two yachts. not an appreciative difference. plus, regardless of how you cut it a flat tax would be objectively worse on the lower classes. especially on how they live.sSubZerOo
They hold a immensely disportionate amount, if we did a entire flat tax.. It will eitehr gather too little money, or it will squeeze the middle and lower class.. ITs not about the upper class being wealthy, its about the wealth disparity between the middle and upper class.. A select few in the United States still hold the majority of wealth..
But is it the governements role to decide who can make what? To determine if someone has "too much" money?And why should luxuries be of less importance than the survival of the rich? Why should the rich suffer luxuries just so the poor can survive? Vandalvideoif you want an economic response: a maintained underclass provides better productivity, reduces crime, and leads to larger amounts of technical innovation. of course, most people give the answer "because we aren't goddamn sociopaths", but I don't know if you qualify for this.
[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] A circular argument is an argument where the conclusion is the same as a premise. I offered no such argument. Go back to philosophy 101.VandalvideoMaybe you should go back to philosophy 101. Your first premise was; more wealthy people ought to pay more taxes. I asked why they should. You said because they are more wealthy. Inherent in the first premise is the fact that they are more wealthy. It is a circular argument. Again, give me adequate justification. I think you kind of twisted my argument. My conclusion was that wealthy people should pay more taxes, not my premise. it was more like this:
Rich people earn a lot of money
Poor people do not earn much money
Rich people can afford to lose a high percentage of their money and still have all of their basic needs met and live an advantaged life/
Poor people cannot afford to lose very much money without sacrificing basic needs
Thus, rich people should pay more than poor people in taxes.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]And why should luxuries be of less importance than the survival of the rich? Why should the rich suffer luxuries just so the poor can survive? Hewkiiif you want an economic response: a maintained underclass provides better productivity, reduces crime, and leads to larger amounts of technical innovation. of course, most people give the answer "because we aren't goddamn sociopaths", but I don't know if you qualify for this. Assumption; the rich would not maintain the lower class sufficiently to allow for the safe functioning of the economy.
Maybe you should go back to philosophy 101. Your first premise was; more wealthy people ought to pay more taxes. I asked why they should. You said because they are more wealthy. Inherent in the first premise is the fact that they are more wealthy. It is a circular argument. Again, give me adequate justification. I think you kind of twisted my argument. My conclusion was that wealthy people should pay more taxes, not my premise. it was more like this:[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] A circular argument is an argument where the conclusion is the same as a premise. I offered no such argument. Go back to philosophy 101.Plzhelpmelearn
Rich people earn a lot of money
Poor people do not earn much money
Rich people can afford to lose a high percentage of their money and still have all of their basic needs met and live an advantaged life/
Poor people cannot afford to lose very much money without sacrificing basic needs
Thus, rich people should pay more than poor people in taxes.
Basic needs was never part of your original argument. Now you're just adding more premises which I will now combat. Why should basic needs be an important part of the equation? What about luxuries? Why should the rich suffer luxuries so that the poor can have their basic needs. Also; assumption, in this system the poor would not have their basic needs. That you have not proven so far.Assumption; the rich would not maintain the lower class sufficiently to allow for the safe functioning of the economy. Vandalvideo"safe" and "exemplary" aren't necessarily the same things. plus 'sufficiently' still allows for massive crime problems, which lead to a massive police state to contain the issues. and again, most non-sociopaths wouldn't be happy with "sufficiently".
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] He's a special exception. The majority of the money he makes is through the stock market. Capital gains taxes are much lower than wage taxes or earnings taxes. But there's a reason for that - no one would invest if your earnings in the stock market were heavily taxed. There would be no reason to. Besides, no one but Warren Buffet can consistently beat the market. Anyone making a comprabable salary to Buffet - outside of the stock market - would likely pay both massive amounts and percentages to the government.sonicareYes but while Buffett doesn't represent a majority of the wealthy, there are still quite a few people that are living very comfortably through the stock market and are being taxed very little. Add that with the fact that besides the income tax, pretty much ever other tax is a flat, regressive tax (e.g. the payroll tax), and the fact that the effective corporate tax rate in America is among the lowest in the world - the American tax system has been very good to the wealthy in this country, and it hasn't been as good to those who are not so wealthy. I have no problem with people living off the stock market. That's an incredibly risky thing to do and they are contributing to the economy. If anything, they've earned that money. Besides, how could you possibly tax those gains more without compromising investment? Part of the financial crisis today is that people, banks, institutions are not investing. The vast majority of tax that people paying taxes pay is income tax in this country. If 40% of the population is paying no income tax, how can you say that it's been unfair to them? Sales tax is regressive and tends to hit the lower classes the hardest. Property taxes tend to hit the middle class, and income tax tends to hit the wealthy the most. I think it's a very misleading argument that Hillary claims the rich don't pay their share. They do. They could always pay more, but to portray them as freeloaders is erroneous. I don't have a problem with people living off of the stock market either, but compared to people in the same income bracket, they are being significantly under taxed.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Assumption; the rich would not maintain the lower class sufficiently to allow for the safe functioning of the economy. Hewkii"safe" and "exemplary" aren't necessarily the same things. plus 'sufficiently' still allows for massive crime problems, which lead to a massive police state to contain the issues. and again, most non-sociopaths wouldn't be happy with "sufficiently". Even if we accept your argument that "sufficiently" would not cover it, then that just begs the question of how you know that the rich wouldn't continue investing in order to reduce crime rates and increase their overall revenue. That is a hard thing to prove. But I ask for proof.
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] and that is the answer. This isn't a clas$ room its real life. The real life reason is because they can afford to pay more.VandalvideoThat isn't a justification at all. You need reasoning, argumentation. The mere fact that they are wealthy is not itself a sufficient argument for why we should tax the wealthy. It is like me saying; "One should drink more water because one should drink more water". You need proofs.
I'm sorry its the other way around buddy.. You must prove that human nature which is selfish.. Would not prove differently here.. We have thousands of years of this behavior by every one.. Hell the recent economic problems was due to a spending spree on both the business levels and personal levels which were short sighted which led to a economic collapse..
We have this kind of behavior every day.. We had this exact forsight in economic behavior during and before the early 1900s.. Its the main reason why paying taxes is not merely something you can choose not do.. Its why voter turn out is so bad, because human nature is short sighted and selfish.. We had a time when there was no income tax, there were no real public services outside of the basics.. And that was during the late 1800s and early 1900s in particular.. Most would consider those times to be radically inferior compared to present date..
And based on the fact we have had this system for decades.. You must prove how this would make things better.. GL trying to use the 1800s and early 1900s in trying to prove your point :P
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] The justification is common sense(another phil-101 property) Some things don't need justification... Its like Vandalvideo trying to prove that Vandalvideo exist and is not just the magic of an evil demon... A billionaire should pay a higher percentage than someone making 10K at burger shack because they can afford it..VandalvideoCommon sense, the poor man's logic. Again, you can't just appeal to some phantom majority and pretend you won the argument. Even if I were to accept that there is some phantom majority to whom this common sense belongs, that alone does not mean we should listen to common sense. That would be a bandwagon fallacy. I demand justification, arguments. How about we discuss what is real in lieu of outwitting each other with word play(which is all an argument is). Whether or not we can arrange our words together in an acceptable way it doesn't change the fact that the answer is simple. If you can afford to pay more then you pay more(or at least that is the logic behind HC and Obama's tax increase policies).
[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Assumption; the rich would not maintain the lower class sufficiently to allow for the safe functioning of the economy. Vandalvideo"safe" and "exemplary" aren't necessarily the same things. plus 'sufficiently' still allows for massive crime problems, which lead to a massive police state to contain the issues. and again, most non-sociopaths wouldn't be happy with "sufficiently". Even if we accept your argument that "sufficiently" would not cover it, then that just begs the question of how you know that the rich wouldn't continue investing in order to reduce crime rates and increase their overall revenue. That is a hard thing to prove. But I ask for proof.
Quite simple we have times in history when we had this exact same thing.. Where the businesses did not pay to reduce crime, they paid the police and secuirty forces like the pinkerton men to enforce their own interests.
'm sorry its the other way around buddy.. You must prove that human nature which is selfish.. Would not prove differently here.. We have thousands of years of this behavior by every one.. We have this kind of behavior every day.. We had this exact forsight in economic behavior during and before the early 1900s.. Its the main reason why paying taxes is not merely something you can choose not do.. Its why voter turn out is so bad, because human nature is short sighted and selfish.. We had a time when there was no income tax, there were no real public services outside of the basics.. And that was during the late 1800s and early 1900s in particular.. Most would consider those times to be radically inferior compared to present date.. And based on the fact we have had this system for decades.. You must prove how this would make things better.. GL trying to use the 1800s and early 1900s in trying to prove your point :PsSubZerOoSlow down there. I must prove nothing. I have claimed nothing. All I've done is question your premises and ask for proof of your own assumptions. I have not claimed that the rich would invest in society. I have merely demanded evidence from you that they wouldn't, a necessary condition for your argument to follow. The mere fact that people in the past have been selfish does not necessitate that they will be so today if such a system were to grow. And even if we accept that humans are selfish, that alone does not mean that they would not invest. It could be in their best interest to invest; stake holder theory. The growing of a community through investment may increase their bottom line.
Even if we accept your argument that "sufficiently" would not cover it, then that just begs the question of how you know that the rich wouldn't continue investing in order to reduce crime rates and increase their overall revenue. That is a hard thing to prove. But I ask for proof. Vandalvideomodern history, for one. most companies are concerned with short term gains and quarterly earnings, so that they'll sacrifice long term stability (see: the financial crisis). some companies do focus on increasing revenue, by raising crime rates. the private prison industry (along with prison guard unions) have repeatedly lobbied in favor for restrictive laws like the War on Drugs so that they can have more prisoners, more prisons, and more profit (because they actually outsource prisoners for work, you know).
Basic needs was never part of your original argument. Now you're just adding more premises which I will now combat. Why should basic needs be an important part of the equation? What about luxuries? Why should the rich suffer luxuries so that the poor can have their basic needs. Also; assumption, in this system the poor would not have their basic needs. That you have not proven so far. Vandalvideo
Really? Probably because you will get a crapload of riots on your hands from the people, or be forced to be become a tyrant ruling through fear.
The whole goal of the governments is to support it's people, not exploit them. Supporting them means that basic needs are covered for everyone under it's rule.
The following goal of governments is to make the nation progress.
You don't go anywhere with uneducated, pissed off starving people.
[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"]I think you kind of twisted my argument. My conclusion was that wealthy people should pay more taxes, not my premise. it was more like this:[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Maybe you should go back to philosophy 101. Your first premise was; more wealthy people ought to pay more taxes. I asked why they should. You said because they are more wealthy. Inherent in the first premise is the fact that they are more wealthy. It is a circular argument. Again, give me adequate justification. Vandalvideo
Rich people earn a lot of money
Poor people do not earn much money
Rich people can afford to lose a high percentage of their money and still have all of their basic needs met and live an advantaged life/
Poor people cannot afford to lose very much money without sacrificing basic needs
Thus, rich people should pay more than poor people in taxes.
Basic needs was never part of your original argument. Now you're just adding more premises which I will now combat. Why should basic needs be an important part of the equation? What about luxuries? Why should the rich suffer luxuries so that the poor can have their basic needs. Also; assumption, in this system the poor would not have their basic needs. That you have not proven so far. Why should the rich suffer luxuries for the basic needs of the poor. I have a couple reasons.1. It is to the benefit of the rich that the poor do not get pissed off and violently overthrow the rich who are living with luxury while the rest struggle.
2. it is in the best interest of the preservation of humanity as a whole in a survival sense.
I cannot demonstrate to you regarding poor people struggling to have their basic needs met, it is something you have to see at a food kitchen or some place similar.
Also, I should include that I believe that some amount of recreation is a basic need of humanity. You have not justified your opinion that we should all pay a flat tax. I could easily conclude from your argument that people should pay the same because we are all equal as humans that all humans should also be entitled to earn the same amount of money and set up a communist system...
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Even if we accept your argument that "sufficiently" would not cover it, then that just begs the question of how you know that the rich wouldn't continue investing in order to reduce crime rates and increase their overall revenue. That is a hard thing to prove. But I ask for proof. Hewkiimodern history, for one. most companies are concerned with short term gains and quarterly earnings, so that they'll sacrifice long term stability (see: the financial crisis). some companies do focus on increasing revenue, by raising crime rates. the private prison industry (along with prison guard unions) have repeatedly lobbied in favor for restrictive laws like the War on Drugs so that they can have more prisoners, more prisons, and more profit (because they actually outsource prisoners for work, you know). Now, prove that the prison industry is in the majority, and their actions would not be outweighed by more virtuous companies.
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] How about we discuss what is real in lieu of outwitting each other with word play(which is all an argument is). Whether or not we can arrange our words together in an acceptable way it doesn't change the fact that the answer is simple. If you can afford to pay more than you pay more(or at least that is the logic behind HC and Obama's tax increase policies). VandalvideoThat is not a self-supporting argument. Why should those who can pay more must pay more?
Your looking it at it completely wrong.. Why shouldn't a government heavily tax a richer smaller population group that holds the majorty of welath to properly fund the services they and every one enjoys? The rich don't have to pay, its called leaving the country. Thats not the argument what so ever.. The government does this specifically because its the most efficent way of funding the services and programs that are active.. Cut programs? Well thats NOT the argument, we are talking about TAXATION.. And based on taxation people have already explained it why its exactly that way.
1. It is to the benefit of the rich that the poor do not get pissed off and violently overthrow the rich who are living with luxury while the rest struggle.PlzhelpmelearnA well payed, well fed private police force could take care of that. And besides, that doesn't prove that the people would not be subsidized by the rich to prevent such things from happening.
Why should Mr. Rich care about the survival of the species?2. it is in the best interest of the preservation of humanity as a whole in a survival sense.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]'m sorry its the other way around buddy.. You must prove that human nature which is selfish.. Would not prove differently here.. We have thousands of years of this behavior by every one.. We have this kind of behavior every day.. We had this exact forsight in economic behavior during and before the early 1900s.. Its the main reason why paying taxes is not merely something you can choose not do.. Its why voter turn out is so bad, because human nature is short sighted and selfish.. We had a time when there was no income tax, there were no real public services outside of the basics.. And that was during the late 1800s and early 1900s in particular.. Most would consider those times to be radically inferior compared to present date.. And based on the fact we have had this system for decades.. You must prove how this would make things better.. GL trying to use the 1800s and early 1900s in trying to prove your point :PVandalvideoSlow down there. I must prove nothing. I have claimed nothing. All I've done is question your premises and ask for proof of your own assumptions. I have not claimed that the rich would invest in society. I have merely demanded evidence from you that they wouldn't, a necessary condition for your argument to follow. The mere fact that people in the past have been selfish does not necessitate that they will be so today if such a system were to grow. And even if we accept that humans are selfish, that alone does not mean that they would not invest. It could be in their best interest to invest; stake holder theory. The growing of a community through investment may increase their bottom line.
.. This is wrong, we specifiically had an entire political movement in the 1900s to address the abuses and the clear lack of change that were happening.. We have historical evidence that proves your wrong.. And yes you specifically advocated for a flat tax earlier in your posts..
Your looking it at it completely wrong.. Why shouldn't a government heavily tax a richer smaller population group that holds the majorty of welath to properly fund the services they and every one enjoys? The rich don't have to pay, its called leaving the country. Thats not the argument what so ever.. The government does this specifically because its the most efficent way of funding the services and programs that are active.. Cut programs? Well thats NOT the argument, we are talking about TAXATION.. And based on taxation people have already explained it why its exactly that way.sSubZerOoIf programs are cut, then there is less of a need for taxation. The need for taxation alone does not mean that the rich should carry the burden.
This is wrong, we specifiically had an entire political movement in the 1900s to address the abuses and the clear lack of change that were happening.. We have historical evidence that proves your wrong.. And yes you specifically advocated for a flat tax earlier in your posts..sSubZerOoAgain, merely because it happened that way in the past does not necessitate it will happen that way in the future. Mitigating variables like type of economy, people in charge, and other factors could create a vastly different outcome. History is not sufficient. Also, go back and look again. It wasn't advocacy, it was questioning.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Your looking it at it completely wrong.. Why shouldn't a government heavily tax a richer smaller population group that holds the majorty of welath to properly fund the services they and every one enjoys? The rich don't have to pay, its called leaving the country. Thats not the argument what so ever.. The government does this specifically because its the most efficent way of funding the services and programs that are active.. Cut programs? Well thats NOT the argument, we are talking about TAXATION.. And based on taxation people have already explained it why its exactly that way.VandalvideoIf programs are cut, then there is less of a need for taxation. The need for taxation alone does not mean that the rich should carry the burden. But the fact that they are rich makes them prime candidates for taxation.
How about all the politicians and actors pay their "fair share"..and leave those that earned it through hard work and persistence alone..
[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"]1. It is to the benefit of the rich that the poor do not get pissed off and violently overthrow the rich who are living with luxury while the rest struggle.VandalvideoA well payed, well fed private police force could take care of that. And besides, that doesn't prove that the people would not be subsidized by the rich to prevent such things from happening.
Why should Mr. Rich care about the survival of the species? A well fed and well paid private police force would probably not be able to prevent a mass uprising of a couple hundred million people in America engaging in riots. Not to mention they very well may participate on principle (biting the hand that feeds is not that uncommon). So I still think it is in the best interest of society as a whole, and thus rich people as well, to spread the wealth around.2. it is in the best interest of the preservation of humanity as a whole in a survival sense.
This argument is getting kind of silly, but it is in the best interest of rich people to keep society and humanity going mainly because the reason these individuals are rich is because they own companies who hire the lower classes. If the lower classes are not happy all production will likely cease, society collapse, and all that wealth will be worth less than the paper it is printed on. Also you did not mention my argument with the problem of paying the same taxes. If that is acceptable, then why shouldn't we all be entitled to earn the same?
the majority of what? HewkiiWhen you used the analogy of the prison industry, inherent in the argument was the assumption that it would have an appreciable effect on the entire economy, or that they are representative of the entire sample of businesses. You need to show that the prison industry is representative of all industries in their destabilizing nature. You also have to show that the destabilizing forces of these companies wouldn't be offset by other, larger companies.
Hillary is always good for laughs. Yes, what we need after 8 million private sector jobs have disappeared is to raise taxes on those who already shoulder the tax burden. Brilliant.:roll:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment