Tax burden - Page 4

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

If you don't understand what happens when resources get heavily concentrated then of course you're not going to understand why people are wanting to use taxation to affect distribution. It's hardly about "fairness." Funny how the only times the world "fair" has been used it's been by the conservatives.

Oh, I understand... I understand that Marxism doesn't work and ends up slowing production. I know that distribution of wealth enslaves people to one another. I know that it creates a welfare state (what we already have is horrible for the poor people, redistribution would be even worse).

It's an unreasonable political theory that has been tried and has failed. What's worse is that Marx, pretty much the father of socialism, was a rich guy who sat around thinking about what poor people want and do.

"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed" - Herman Melville

Free market economics makes no assumptions on the nature of poor people, it simply allows them to partake in the same way anyone else can.

7960 · 12-19-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

If you got offended by my use of the term "conservative" just change it to "fiscal conservative."

Not offended. Just thought it was funny that you're posting like you have any idea what I stand for when clearly you do not.

Originally Posted by bheld

Where did I use the word "fair?"

You haven't use the word, but it's the undertone of everything you're typing.

JaJae · 12-19-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

If you got offended by my use of the term "conservative" just change it to "fiscal conservative."

The word conservative is not offensive. The prejudiced statements surrounding the use of it are not helping your argument though.

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think we are talking about taking away incentives but in a system where luck plays a large role in who gets rich and who does not, you need something to even that out. I can work my ass off all my life and never be as rich as Bill Gates. Yes, you need to work hard to have a chance to succeed, and having brains increases your chances further, but neither will guarantee you anything. Yeah if you are smart and work hard you will probably be OK. But when you have people walking around with hundreds of millions of dollars in thier bank accounts and at the same time have people working 2 jobs trying to support thier families... incentive isn't an issue. Both people have incentives. I would argue that the guy working 2 jobs has more incentive to succeed. The poor person working 2 jobs has plenty of incentive, works hard, but still struggles. Whereas the person with millions has a much easier time. Why should that be? Accident of birth? Right time right place? Why do we have a system where some people get more than others given equal input?

The goal of the majority of people isn't to get rich, it's to work enough to provide for themselves and their families. Some people get rich due to luck or because they're just really that innovative or dedicated, that's how it always has been and always will be. There's no reason to penalize them because YOU are jealous of their wealth. The rest of us just want to be left alone and we want our neighbor to be left alone, even if he's crazy-ass rich. Them being rich has nothing to do with ME unless they're also providing me with a job to support me and my family, then I'm thankful they're rich so they have the means to provide me with a job.

7960 · 12-19-2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think we are talking about taking away incentives but in a system where luck plays a large role in who gets rich and who does not, you need something to even that out.

Wow. What is "something to even that out"? Tax one group and give it to another? How are you going to judge the "works hard for his money" people from the "lazy bastard but gets money" people?

I can work my ass off all my life and never be as rich as Bill Gates. Yes, you need to work hard to have a chance to succeed, and having brains increases your chances further, but neither will guarantee you anything.

Why should that be? Accident of birth? Right time right place? Why do we have a system where some people get more than others given equal input?

You and a friend go to college. Same classes, same grades, graduate with the same GPA and get jobs at the same company. One day in a meeting he makes the "right" comment and the boss figures he's got it going so he gets a raise.

According to you he should give you part of it because up to then you'd given the same effort?

Yes luck plays a part. So does who you know. So does how well you speak. Not lucky? Don't know many people? Have a speech impediment? Too bad.

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes luck plays a part. So does who you know. So does how well you speak. Not lucky? Don't know many people? Have a speech impediment? Too bad.

Lol, that's a bit crass. I'd have replaced the last part with "then be creative or work harder."

JaJae · 12-19-2007, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, I understand... I understand that Marxism doesn't work and ends up slowing production. I know that distribution of wealth enslaves people to one another. I know that it creates a welfare state (what we already have is horrible for the poor people, redistribution would be even worse).

I personally don't think Bill Gates or any other wealthy person owes me anything and I reject any economic philosophy that says he does.

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I personally don't think Bill Gates or any other wealthy person owes me anything and I reject any economic philosophy that says he does.

What I don't get is how people can still think he owes them anything when giving back to the world is now a huge part of his life, just like so many other exorbitantly wealthy people. He uses his money now to fight diseases that plague third world nations. If we redistributed it, what would happen? I'll tell you what wouldn't happen, that much money wouldn't get used to do those things. And all those big donors of his, like Warran Buffet... their wealth would be redistributed too.

And that's just ONE aspect of the retardation of redistribution of wealth. That doesn't even TOUCH the national economic impacts.

7960 · 12-19-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Lol, that's a bit crass. I'd have replaced the last part with "then be creative or work harder."

I said earlier I'm done with wordiness.

"But I'm poor!" "But my insurance didn't cover that!!" "My neighbor hit the lottery, why can't I???"

How about STFU and get back to work. You make your own luck. You prepare yourself, you put yourself in the right place. You make sure you grab it when it comes by. Telling someone to "get creative and work harder" (to me) is useless. Most people say they're working as hard as they can, even though they're really only working as hard as they want to.

Too often when I've said someone should work harder the reaction pisses me off.........."I don't want to, but I still want that!" Well shit in one hand and 'want' in the other and see which one fills up first.

WickedLou9 · 12-19-2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Wow. What is "something to even that out"? Tax one group and give it to another? How are you going to judge the "works hard for his money" people from the "lazy bastard but gets money" people?

You and a friend go to college. Same classes, same grades, graduate with the same GPA and get jobs at the same company. One day in a meeting he makes the "right" comment and the boss figures he's got it going so he gets a raise.

According to you he should give you part of it because up to then you'd given the same effort?

Yes luck plays a part. So does who you know. So does how well you speak. Not lucky? Don't know many people? Have a speech impediment? Too bad.

That's an interesting straw man you created and knocked down. You said nothing of value here. I never give out rep points, but this post deserves a negative one for utilizing a logical fallacy to the very letter of it's definition. Why don't you try again with more feeling this time?

WickedLou9 · 12-19-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I said earlier I'm done with wordiness.

"But I'm poor!" "But my insurance didn't cover that!!" "My neighbor hit the lottery, why can't I???"

How about STFU and get back to work. You make your own luck. You prepare yourself, you put yourself in the right place. You make sure you grab it when it comes by. Telling someone to "get creative and work harder" (to me) is useless. Most people say they're working as hard as they can, even though they're really only working as hard as they want to.

Too often when I've said someone should work harder the reaction pisses me off.........."I don't want to, but I still want that!" Well shit in one hand and 'want' in the other and see which one fills up first.

It's so much easier to dismiss the problems as personal failings then to recognize a systemic problem and work for a solution. "Hey those poor people must want to be poor. It's thier fault."
Totally and completely ignorant.

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's so much easier to dismiss the problems as personal failings then to recognize a systemic problem and work for a solution. "Hey those poor people must want to be poor. It's thier fault."
Totally and completely ignorant.

I would agree that we should help from the government if the government were helping them at all. Creating an insurmountable situation with minimum wage and welfare is not fixing the problem at all.

We should help. Our help should come from our pockets or clocks voluntarily. I've done a lot of volunteering in the past and am certainly not above donating to a good cause (local causes interest me more too). I'm all about helping my fellow man, I just think the government does nothing that actually helps, and usually hinders.

7960 · 12-19-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's an interesting straw man you created and knocked down. You said nothing of value here. I never give out rep points, but this post deserves a negative one for utilizing a logical fallacy to the very letter of it's definition. Why don't you try again with more feeling this time?

You expect anyone to have a rational reaction to "but in a system where luck plays a large role in who gets rich and who does not, you need something to even that out." It ranks right up there with "I want to take those profits and I want to put them........." anywhere but with the companies that earned them.

And again with

Originally Posted by you

I can work my ass off all my life and never be as rich as Bill Gates. ..... Why should that be? Why do we have a system where some people get more than others given equal input?

What other system would you propose?

7960 · 12-19-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's so much easier to dismiss the problems as personal failings then to recognize a systemic problem and work for a solution. "Hey those poor people must want to be poor. It's thier fault."
Totally and completely ignorant.

What's ignorant is not reading what I wrote, or reading into it what you want to see. I didn't say they want to be poor. I said more often than not, in my experience people think they're working "hard enough" and that they "deserve more." You can find evidence of that in statements like this

The poor person working 2 jobs has plenty of incentive, works hard, but still struggles. Whereas the person with millions has a much easier time. Why should that be?

Why shouldn't it be? IMO the rich person *should* feel an obligation to give. In no way would I support a state-mandated "giving program."

Scrum · 12-19-2007, 04:42 PM

I'm not sure why people think having the rich take on a larger burden of the nations framework and operational costs is considered a "redistribution of wealth". They are able to make their money thanks to that framework and should bear a larger burden than the poor or middle class.

edit - I'm talking under the current tax system which I think should be eliminated.

7960 · 12-19-2007, 04:43 PM

Ok, wait. Let's back up. We're talking about rich and poor and taxes and all that shit. Generally there are people who think the rich are under-taxed and others who think they're over-(or rightly)-taxed.

What I'm not seeing is any talk from the "they're under-taxed" group about what they want. Ok, raise they're taxes........and do what??!!?!? Give the money away? Programs for the poor? Reduce taxes on the poor? Raise the "no tax" ceiling for the poor?

You keep saying "the rich should pay more" but there's no talk of what to do with it.

Go.

RMNIXON · 12-19-2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The amount of money in a system isn't static. Them doing better for themselves does not mean they are doing so by taking money away from those less fortunate. That is a completely silly argument.

And don't forget that a tax base is a matter of % of income or anything else you care to tax. That is not the same as actual revenue. People who have substantial growth in income may be paying a lot more in taxes in actual dollars even if the bracket numbers are lower. More in income tax, sales tax, property tax, ect....You cannot simply raise taxes to generate more revenue. When you do this to a point where it is a disinsentive to spend and invest in the private sector you will end up with less money to fund the government. Liberals need to stop thinking of taxation as a way to punish an economic class they don't like. It does not work.

Ardentfrost · 12-19-2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm not sure why people think having the rich take on a larger burden of the nations framework and operational costs is considered a "redistribution of wealth". They are able to make their money thanks to that framework and should bear a larger burden than the poor or middle class.

The conversation went that way. It didn't start that way. Funding the government with income tax is one (bad) thing. Creating a situation where everyone magically has the exact right amount of money completely independent of how much work they have put into the system is something else.

RMNIXON · 12-19-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm not sure why people think having the rich take on a larger burden of the nations framework and operational costs is considered a "redistribution of wealth". They are able to make their money thanks to that framework and should bear a larger burden than the poor or middle class.

I am not sure who is getting rich on the framework of our government other than a whole bunch of lawyers? Corporate welfare aside, I think the best business interest is to keep government from being such a pain in the ass while trying to make every free market product or service idiot proof. That is more of an unreasonable burden that taxes. And that cost goes direct to the consumer. Those poor and middle income people you mentioned.