Why not tax the Rich? - Page 3

quote:

---

That's not the point. The gov has a role to :
- make sure everyone has equal opportunities
- make sure everyone's basic rights are enforced
- protect the nation from outside threats
- enforce peace and security within the nation

---

YOU are wrong about the meaning in context of the first line....the government must ensure all peoples have the same rights to advance themselves, and become wealthy. BUT this does not mean that the poor have the right to get their money.

I love poor people, and worry about the homeless children....

the mom's must flee the abusive households with their children, and have no where to go...except crumbling shelters, filled with all walks fo life.

The 'other' poor are the ones who take advantage of the system, because they can.

The system needs changed, and as far as I know, it has been. Our country would benefit from 'entrepenuers' and workers, feeding back into the economy more than it does from folks, soaking off the economy.

Progress is not possible, if we let the government keep ppl at home living off other people's taxes.

IT is good for a time, and for a reason, but being a career welfare recipient doesnt help the nation.
Getting out there, working, NOT being idle (Like many drug sellers and users) and applying your efforts and PAYING TAXES...will increase the communities, and the nation.

The wealthy are wealthy because of their efforts. THEY owe no one. Except taxation, with representation!

IT would be utopia if they felt the need to share.....but that is an entirely different debate.

THIS NATION IS GREAT BECAUSE WE CAN 'GET AHEAD' AND NOT BE PENALIZED FOR IT.

Overzealous taxation would only decrease the aptitude for leadership and the propensity for prosperity IF we still would not get ahead because the taxation scale would keep us down.

Basically DT, the idea of socialism would not work in our nation, and it is why we are the place to be...for dreams to be made.

Proportionate taxation is what we currently have, but democrats complain they want higher taxes, but unlike the rest of society, they make the boku bucks, and pay less taxes...why is that?

Also, the percentage of our 'wealth' and taxes do COME from the 'wealthy'.

Most think it comes from middle americans. BUT it is middle america that makes up the majority of society....
so in fact, the wealthy (Although less in numbers) pay as much as the average group in society......and I do not mean as much in way of %, but as much in way of $'s....and actually MORE!

Why is this an issue?

IT is election year.

Note the word opportunities. I did not say, make sure we're all paid the same. I said its the government has the duty to ensure that we all have more or less equal chances of accessing higher education, and with a certain education, that we all have our chance of getting the job we deserve.

Example : civil rights for black americans during LBJ's term in office, that was about equal opportunities.
Affirmative Action is a counter-example.

Because I want to keep my money?

Nugamer,

perfect answer and exactly why nobody should vote democrap.

Steve From Texas

Pat, a lot of rich people are rich because they abuse the system to their advantage too, many have money just given from their family (and do nothing with their lives). There is a lot of hard work that many other rich people do to get their wealth no doubt, but they aren't they only ones.

Pat, a lot of rich people are rich because they abuse the system to their advantage too, many have money just given from their family (and do nothing with their lives). There is a lot of hard work that many other rich people do to get their wealth no doubt, but they aren't they only ones.

Abuse?

Is it abuse to be an entrepreneur?

Is it abuse to build wealth to better the lives of your kids?

Is it abuse to create a product or service that people want; that the market rewards for its usefulness?

I think that you are too quick to label wealthy folk as unethical; you somehow think it is your 'right' to decide who gets to keep what portion of a wealthy man's success, and you do this through a tax code that only amplifies your own failures. When you increase the taxes of a wealthy man, he simply passes the cost of those taxes to the market, lay off workers, or simply shuts down his business.

You can tax him to your hearts content, but you cannot force him to produce the products and services that you enjoy at reasonable price and that in many cases are necessary for your survival.

Tax the wealthy and you will only create a lower standard fo living as is the case in all Socialist and semi-socialist countries. Visit an average income European and the first thing you will notice is how small their home is and how expensive all their products and services are.

So before you demand his wealth through higher taxes, look at it from his point of view and ask your self...

"What have you done to deserve my wealth?"

"What have you done to 'EARN ' my wealth?"

This isnt about fairness, this is about EVERYONE's collective well-being. The money has to come from somewhere, rich people have the most of it, we have to stop spending money we don't have by either lowering expenses or upping taxes.

Nugamer

The only thing to this is that taxes are percentage based, and tax cuts and tax write offs are only fair if properly used and administered, I can't say for sure, but speculation abound leads to the possibility that its not even and right enough, something is wrong if someone has a full time job and cannot support his family, thats all I do know for sure.

I'm not sure what math you are using, but a % is the same "proportion' regardless of the value X.

Don't give me that 'collective well being...' nonsense. That's socialist philosophy; it's a philosophy of decay and chaos.

Perhaps you need little bit of Ayn Rand thinking in your life; for starters, read Atlas Shrugged.

Anyway, back to tax rates now...

Our current tax code is composed of several tax brackets, which place the wealthy at approximately 35%; a comparable disadvantage to those taxed as lower income brackets.

Ask yourself these two questions in earnest:

1. At what point will you be satisfied that wealthy folks have paid their 'fair' share?

2. How much taxation is enough?

3. Do you think we should have tax schemes that parallel Europe?

I've already pointed out in my previous post how this will surely work against you...

You can tax the wealthy to your hearts content, but it will be to your determent. Whatever your view of a 'fair' taxation scheme; whatever rate you settle on, it will only increase the working stiff's cost of living.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to keep the wealthy from passing those costs onto the working stiff, i.e. they will absorb that cost at the retail end of the market's spectrum.

As I said before, visit a friend in Europe see his current standard of living and visit a wealthy man and see his. You will find the working stiff living with miniature IKEA furniture in cramped apartments and the wealthy man living in great comfort and opulence.

What ever you decide as part of the working class, whatever your final tax scheme; you will absorb the cost of any tax hike on the wealthy. And, if you think you can block those options; if you think you can somehow ruin his day, think again my friend!

An honest wealthy man, a self-made millionaire, is not successful because he is a fool; he is successful only because he is determined to succeeded and maintain that upper hand in the market place; he has an advantage over those caught-up or relegated to working for someone for the rest of their lives.

There is nothing anyone can do or say to hold him responsible for the failures of others or their misfortune. We are not our brother's keeper; we are free men, in free country, with choices in the market place. Trade at will!


When push comes to shove, its survival of the fittest!

Did a make a mathmatical claim of some sort, all I said was tax write offs and other things alter % rules, and that I don't know all the rules so I asked because of how many times I've heard of things along the nature of the abuse of any tax laws and loopholes.

Survival of the fittest in in a culture of differing social classes is hardly fitting, If the rich want to keep their businesses they need workers too.

I'm not sure what has you so riled by anything I've said, but I'm pretty sure you've read more into anything I said.

The only statement I actually claimed was a problem with income levels for people who have full time jobs but get paid jack shit, and that is usually for the benefit of the rich, but with insurance issues and the like we are all getting screwed.

I highly respect hard working people, but I don't condone abusive authority figures when people can't fight back for fear of losing a job. You talk about survival of the fittest, well then you end up with a postal worker changing your fitness level.

"Don't give me that 'collective well being...' nonsense. That's socialist philosophy; it's a philosophy of decay and chaos."

We wouldn't know no one has managed to care enough to find out, and we do know where the survival of the fittest has us, decay (especially of people's precious morals) and chaos.

Care to expound on tht last part?

Socialist ideals lead to decay & chaos for obvious reason; I will give you a stark example:

Cuba

This country is what it is because of its property rights philosophy.

In 1961, in Habana, Fidel's cronies stormed into my father's home & business, they claimed his property as that of the State; they claimed is for the 'well being of the people.'

Men who resisted were shot.

With two kids and a wife, he fled Cuba for Miami; he set down his bags and started anew. He came to a country of a different language, but one with free markets, one where men could trade freely without coercion... In spite of his disadvantage in language, he worked, saved, and started a business. My father is long dead now... and I'm so glad he made the right choice to leave.

He new they could take his property, but they could not take his spirit and self-determinism.

You ask, 'Where has survival of the fittest left us?'

It has brought us to free markets, fueled by individual self-interest, that have placed us at the top of the food chain; it has enhanced and lengthened our lives.

My father could have stayed and embraced the ideals of the collective, 'for the well-being of the people.' He could have resisted and been shot.
He did not choose to leave for the sake of anyone but himself. He acted on self-interest; he chose freedom!

My father made the wisest 'choice.'

Taxation is not much different than having the State seize your property for the 'well being of the people.'

If taxed to a breaking point, the wealthy will choose as my father did.

They will refuse a brand of taxation that holds them responsible for the actions or inaction of unwilling or unable.

And liberalism leads to the Great Depression, I would note that while the entire world had 30% unemployment, Stalin's soviet economy was booming.

The simple truth is that obviously we must have a free market, but gov intervention is necessary. The question is : how much gov?

But see, survival of the fittest does not allow for rules, and the "free" market you speak of does have rules.

Not to be disrespectful but your father practiced plain old survival, coming here gave rise to opporunity allowed by rules that restrict a survival of the fittest mentality. Its just not enforced enought when people start fucking other people over because its the survival of the fittest.

This country is but 220+ years old, it has already experieced some pretty bleak times in terms of the prosperity of the free market, we meddle in foreign affairs not to help others so much as to help ourselves, and by doing so help people like saddam gas people then call him a war criminal and take him out. This is sickening to me, but it is the survival of the fittest.

We are a nation of many, survival of the fittest is a individualist notion. Stuff like Enron where hard working people get the shaft is what I specifically refer to when I speak of the bad that mentality leads to. A government that lies to its people and commits crimes in foreign lands. A government run by big business that understands and lives soley by that mentality. Manipulation, lies, backstabbing, are things that come of it.

Your father's country was practicing a survival of the fittest mentality, and your family was unable to fight them, does that make them unfit by your own philosophy, or victims of savages?