%@#%@ the unions!

[byteware]

How much, exactly, is enough?

Don't you think maybe SPENDING is the problem? (oops - that should probably be a new thread )

I was presenting someone else's opinion... not my own.

Yes, spending is part of the equation, but you can't realistically get spending down enough that we don't need more taxes.

The sad thing is that you honestly believe this... we need to seriously revamp the way we spend money in the government.

Really? Assuming we're only talking about federal income tax here, when did 53% of the country become rich?

You can ignore the word almost all you want, but that doesn't remove it from my statement.

The top 10% of income earners in this country pay 70% of the income taxes...

The other 90% pay 30% of the income taxes in this country...

Heck, the bottom 50% only pay 2.7% of the income tax collected in this country.

The bottom 75% only pay 16.7% of the income tax collected in this country.

It's not a matter of how the income tax is distributed across incomes... it's a matter of you want to spend more money than you've got, and the only people you feel comfortable taking that money from are the rich...

None of that disagrees with what I've said. The hard choices that have to be made are to raise taxes and cut some spending. It's not going to happen any time soon, as you say.

Cut some serious spending. I'd like to cut the budget by a quarter. That's my personal opinion. And I think we can keep our current level of services and cut about a quarter of the budget.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with them raising taxes on everyone, but I do. Until the rates are proportionally what they should be, taxes shouldn't be raised on everyone. But yes, obviously, spending is at least as big an issue, if not more.

Proportionally what they should be?

Up until over $50,000 a family of four not only doesn't pay a dime in income taxes, but they get free money (wealth redistribution) from the federal government.

If you want income taxes proportionally where they should be, then the lower middle class, and upper lower class need to start paying SOME taxes.

 

[byteware]

Because a lot of people can't afford it.

And, that's a good argument for not raising taxes.

Especially when the call to raise taxes comes from the population that can't afford to pay those tax increases themselves.

We can only reasonably expect someone making $25,000 to pay so much in taxes.

And those with much more in income are walking wallets we should be able to dip into at will...

 

[cipher6]

Your all over the place... making many wild assumptions.

You could say that, but it's not the case. We can cut back on spending, but not by that much.

Have you analyzed the budget? Do you even know where a majority of the US government spends its money? Thats a statement I really don't agree with.

OK, our expenses are X, even if we cut out all the frivolous spending. Our revenue is Y. If 75% of those people are paying pretty much what they can reasonably be expected to, and Y is still less than X, then it's the other 25% that isn't paying the amount they should.

But why is revenue at the level it is? You assume the only answer to that is taxes are too low. It could very well be economic activity is too low. If GDP is 20 trillion, and you tax 30%, thats 6 trilling in revenue. But if GDP is 25 trillion and you tax at 28% you have 7 trillion in revenue. See how that works.

I was giving examples, and you're missing the point. The point is in that example $3 trillion is the minimum budget we need to have decent roads, schools, etc. So, cutting spending at that point is not an option.

I'm my point is your pulling assumptions out of your butt, assuming current spending levels are the minimum required. Your also failing to take into account the effect economic activity has on government revenue, and the effect government economic policy has on economic activity.

By that logic, we just shouldn't tax business owners, so that they can put all that money into their business. However, in reality, that's not what happens. The guy making $370,000 after taxes is generally not investing more in his business than the guy making $330,000 after taxes.

For any of this to be meaningful, you're going to have to start producing numbers. For one, how do you know the tax rate you proposed would close budget gaps? If it did, how to you maintain we keep those levels, government spending is constantly increasing, we raise taxes that cover costs for say next 10 years, what next? Raise taxes again? and again and again?

OK, you have a community of 1,000 people and 3 grocery stores. Over a couple of years, that population expands to 2,000 people. Either you need more than 3 grocery stores or you need many more employees at each of the existing stores. The more people buying a product from a company, the more that company can expand and create jobs.

But where did the extra 1,000 people get jobs to have money to spend at the grocery store, increasing its sales, allowing it to hire more people?


If your population of 1,000 is fully employed, and the demand for workers is fully met, the extra 1,000 people have no jobs, meaning no money, meaning no increased sales at the store.

Someone has to take the risk of investing their time and money in an idea they think people will pay for. Then, they can start heiring the unemployed, who can then spend their money at the store, increasing their sales, and allowing them to expand and hire more people.

 

[Ryan P.]

I'm talking about the top marginal income tax rate... You guys are arguing among other things whether or not a progressive tax rate is punitive or not. It kind of depends doesn't it on how progressive it is. For a number of years in the US the top rate was over 90% and I would think anyone would consider that punitive. As far as the rich paying more in taxes they already do.

This is why I say morality has little place in economic policy, because "punitive" is by definition subjective, and so opinions on what is punitive will vary wildly, and no opinion is intrinsically any more valid than any other.

Nevertheless, we have a society to run, and we must set the rate somewhere. In the absence of morality telling us where to set the rates, all we have is pure efficiency.

I think the sooner we realize that in reality, all of this is up for debate, the sooner we can start making effective decisions.
"Fairness" needs to be considered to the extent required to get people to comply with the law, but no further.

So, as a for-instance, would a 90% marginal rate be punitive? It depends on 90% of what. In my opinion, if it is 90% of income above $10 million (or so), then no, it is not punitive. Others will disagree, and say the government should not be entitled to more than half of what a person makes, because it's not "fair." On the other hand, it can be argued whether or not it was "fair" for that person to make $10 million to begin with.

 

[Ryan P.]

And those with much more in income are walking wallets we should be able to dip into at will...

When their income has increased AT THE EXPENSE OF the middle and working classes, then yes, they are expected to contribute more.

With great wealth comes great responsibility. You don't want to pay more taxes? No problem! Just don't make any more money. It's really easy, but for some reason, I never see any rich people do it, despite their loud complaints about their taxes.

 

[mdram]

When their income has increased AT THE EXPENSE OF the middle and working classes, then yes, they are expected to contribute more.

With great wealth comes great responsibility. You don't want to pay more taxes? No problem! Just don't make any more money. It's really easy, but for some reason, I never see any rich people do it, despite their loud complaints about their taxes.

and you dont count the jobs they create as a contribution?

 

[Tom Ace]

The sad thing is that you honestly believe this... we need to seriously revamp the way we spend money in the government.

Yes, we do, and even if we do that, we're still going to need a whole lot of taxes.

You can ignore the word almost all you want, but that doesn't remove it from my statement.

Huh? what word? I didn't ignore anything. You made the claim that the rich are almost the only ones paying taxes. That's a false statement that I pointed out. 53% of the country pays federal income taxes. "Rich" can only be used to describe maybe, at the very most, 20% of the country, and that's even a huge stretch. So, it seems a lot more than rich people are paying taxes.

The top 10% of income earners in this country pay 70% of the income taxes...

The other 90% pay 30% of the income taxes in this country...

Heck, the bottom 50% only pay 2.7% of the income tax collected in this country.

The bottom 75% only pay 16.7% of the income tax collected in this country.

Yup. Now, do you want to break that down?

The average member of the top 10% makes $335,000 and pays $62,700 in tax. The average member of the bottom 90% makes $44,100 and pays $3,000. That means the average pay after taxes for the top 10% is $272,300, and the average pay after taxes for the other 90% is $41,100.

And by the way, the average income tax return for the bottom 50% was $15,361 in 2008. Is it really surprising that 55 million people averaging $15,361 in annual income only contribute 3% of federal income taxes? How much do you think they should contribute?

It's not a matter of how the income tax is distributed across incomes... it's a matter of you want to spend more money than you've got, and the only people you feel comfortable taking that money from are the rich...

No, it's a matter of figuring out what we as a country need. Personally I want to live in a first-world country, but perhaps you don't. In a society, everyone has to contribute how they can. Those with nothing can contribute nothing. If you want to raise the average pay of the bottom 50% to $40,000, I'm sure they wouldn't mind contributing a good bit more in taxes. The more money you make, the bigger responsibility you have regarding taxes.

Cut some serious spending. I'd like to cut the budget by a quarter. That's my personal opinion. And I think we can keep our current level of services and cut about a quarter of the budget.

I'm with you. I think we can do at least a quarter.

Proportionally what they should be?

Up until over $50,000 a family of four not only doesn't pay a dime in income taxes, but they get free money (wealth redistribution) from the federal government.

If you want income taxes proportionally where they should be, then the lower middle class, and upper lower class need to start paying SOME taxes.

The middle and lower classes do pay some taxes. A single person making $25,000 pays taxes, and even the 47% who "don't pay taxes" only don't pay federal income taxes. They still pay some state taxes and payroll taxes. And please leave your comments about "wealth redistribution" out of this, or at least don't throw them in as if it should be agreed that that's a bad thing.

 

[Tom Ace]

And, that's a good argument for not raising taxes.

No, it's a good argument not to raise taxes on those people.

Especially when the call to raise taxes comes from the population that can't afford to pay those tax increases themselves.

That's a weird argument. In a society, everyone has to put in what they can. The rich like being ultrarich. Fine. I have no problem with that. Just contribute what you should then. If they don't want to contribute that much, then they can stop being ultrarich. If they want to keep the wealth disparity where it is, then they need to accept the responsibility that comes along with it. Otherwise you get an 18th-century, Marie-Antoinette situation.

And those with much more in income are walking wallets we should be able to dip into at will...

Ah, well, I guess I can't expect you to actually try to understand the situation. No, they're not walking wallets. But they do need to pay their fair share.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

When their income has increased AT THE EXPENSE OF the middle and working classes, then yes, they are expected to contribute more.

just out of curiosity ... when the rich increase their income, is it always at the expense of the middle and working classes?

 

[ElasticNinja]

and you dont count the jobs they create as a contribution?

the jobs are so they can make money, they don't hire staff as a public service
many, many jobs are created by small business owners, and I would support removing expenses prohibitive to them employing (the key ones being social insurance and healthcare) and increasing profit taxes as well
I would also support a graduated tax entry to encourage startups

regarding taxes, I for one dislike the idea of taxing work, and it would be nice if the federal government could find better sources of income and leave that to individual states, however I guess a federal tax band for very high earners might be a good idea

 

[ElasticNinja]

just out of curiosity ... when the rich increase their income, is it always at the expense of the middle and working classes?

it has to be, otherwise its at the expenses of other countries
of course printing money is an exception

 

[Bob Maxey]

It is simple: when you lower taxes, you raise government revenue. When you lower taxes, people spend and there is more need for product, so more people are hired and more taxes are paid. Why are so many participating in this forum thread not aware of basic economic theory; a theory that has been tested throughout history?

Bob

 

[byteware]

Yes, we do, and even if we do that, we're still going to need a whole lot of taxes.

Prove it.

Huh? what word? I didn't ignore anything. You made the claim that the rich are almost the only ones paying taxes. That's a false statement that I pointed out. 53% of the country pays federal income taxes. "Rich" can only be used to describe maybe, at the very most, 20% of the country, and that's even a huge stretch. So, it seems a lot more than rich people are paying taxes.

Ok... taking your 20% are rich... that means that the rich pay 80% of the taxes paid in this country.

That means that the lower 80% of earning citizens... only paid 20% of the taxes in this country... so yes... when 80% are paying only 20% and 20% are paying 80%... they are almost the only ones paying taxes.

Yup. Now, do you want to break that down?

The average member of the top 10% makes $335,000 and pays $62,700 in tax. The average member of the bottom 90% makes $44,100 and pays $3,000. That means the average pay after taxes for the top 10% is $272,300, and the average pay after taxes for the other 90% is $41,100.

And by the way, the average income tax return for the bottom 50% was $15,361 in 2008. Is it really surprising that 55 million people averaging $15,361 in annual income only contribute 3% of federal income taxes? How much do you think they should contribute?

So, I'm trying to understand your point that people who make less money... make less money.

So, what you are saying is that those who make less money don't have a responsibility to pay taxes?

No, it's a matter of figuring out what we as a country need. Personally I want to live in a first-world country, but perhaps you don't. In a society, everyone has to contribute how they can. Those with nothing can contribute nothing. If you want to raise the average pay of the bottom 50% to $40,000, I'm sure they wouldn't mind contributing a good bit more in taxes. The more money you make, the bigger responsibility you have regarding taxes.

The bigger responsibility? No, the responsibility is the same no matter HOW much you make. You live in this country, you have a responsibility to support it.

This country isn't more some people's responsibility and less others.

The middle and lower classes do pay some taxes. A single person making $25,000 pays taxes, and even the 47% who "don't pay taxes" only don't pay federal income taxes. They still pay some state taxes and payroll taxes. And please leave your comments about "wealth redistribution" out of this, or at least don't throw them in as if it should be agreed that that's a bad thing.

This is a laughable retort to that statement.

Yeah... why should we agree that taking money by force from one person, and giving it to someone else simply for the sake of doing so... is a bad thing.

Of course, I'm sure you would think it was bad if I showed up at your house with a gun and took your money by force and gave it to someone who "values it" more.

 

[byteware]

No, it's a good argument not to raise taxes on those people.

You're right... some people can't afford more taxes, so... raise taxes on those who can... that's a good plan. We'll keep that up until NO ONE can afford to pay more taxes.

That's a weird argument. In a society, everyone has to put in what they can. The rich like being ultrarich. Fine.

Like they have to justify owning that much? Like being rich is a privilege that we give them?

I have no problem with that. Just contribute what you should then.

Let the poor contribute what they should, before you ask the rich to contribute any more than they already do.

The responsibility for this country is EVERYONE'S. Not just the rich.

If they don't want to contribute that much, then they can stop being ultrarich.

If they don't want the government to take their money by force, then they should just not have any... reasonable argument.

If they want to keep the wealth disparity where it is, then they need to accept the responsibility that comes along with it. Otherwise you get an 18th-century, Marie-Antoinette situation.

Ahh... I see. That's where the employees will rise up and chop the heads off of their employers and then stand outside his office confused on payday wondering why they have NO money?

Ah, well, I guess I can't expect you to actually try to understand the situation. No, they're not walking wallets. But they do need to pay their fair share.

How is 80% of income taxes paid NOT their fair share.

And I accept that everyone has a responsibility to support the government via taxes... EVERYONE. Period. That includes the freeloaders.

it has to be, otherwise its at the expenses of other countries
of course printing money is an exception

Really? Everyone who makes money is at the expense of the lower and middle class?

and here I thought it was providing a service that the lower and middle class citizens would pay for... my bad.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

it has to be, otherwise its at the expenses of other countries
of course printing money is an exception

what about someone that starts a business (and gets rich) selling .... oh i don't know ... miniature golf to people on vacation? Or fancy birthday parties that people want? Or a nice car wash? or a really nice landscaping company? Or a million other ideas that don't take advantage of someone. It's not like the rich people are out there looking for ways to jack up the prices on food and clothing and housing.

 

[Tom Ace]

Have you analyzed the budget? Do you even know where a majority of the US government spends its money? Thats a statement I really don't agree with.

Yes, I know where they're spending a majority of their money. I'm not saying we can't make big cuts. I'm saying we can't realistically make big enough cuts that we wouldn't need more taxes. Our budget deficit is close to $1.5 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid cost about $800 billion, and Social Security $700 billion. So, if we just completely cut out those 3 things, we could balance the budget without tax increases. However, nothing even remotely close to that is going to happen. If we cut 50% of military spending, and 30% from each of those things, we still only save $1.15 trillion.

But why is revenue at the level it is? You assume the only answer to that is taxes are too low. It could very well be economic activity is too low. If GDP is 20 trillion, and you tax 30%, thats 6 trilling in revenue. But if GDP is 25 trillion and you tax at 28% you have 7 trillion in revenue. See how that works.

Yes, in better economic times we will have more revenue. But we need to have budget surpluses during those times to provide for the economic downturns. What I said still stands. If we need X amount, and we're not pulling in that much, then it falls on the people who can reasonably pay more.

I'm my point is your pulling assumptions out of your butt, assuming current spending levels are the minimum required. Your also failing to take into account the effect economic activity has on government revenue, and the effect government economic policy has on economic activity.

I'm not doing any of that. I'm not assuming current spending levels are the minimum. I'm saying we need to cut spending. What I was doing is throwing out a number. The actual number is irrelevant. I could have said $100. We can cut spending, but as I mentioned above, it would be close to impossible to cut spending enough to get by on current tax levels.

And yes, government policy has a lot to do with economic activity. It's the reason we're in such a mess. Deregulation led to the housing bubble, among other things, causing the recession.

For any of this to be meaningful, you're going to have to start producing numbers. For one, how do you know the tax rate you proposed would close budget gaps? If it did, how to you maintain we keep those levels, government spending is constantly increasing, we raise taxes that cover costs for say next 10 years, what next? Raise taxes again? and again and again?

I'm not sure why you need specific numbers. What I'm saying is we need spending cuts and tax increases. The specific numbers would take more detail than I'm going to put in. The way I propose to maintain those levels is to not let government spending to constantly increase. As I said, what we need to do is figure out what we need, and tax accordingly.

But where did the extra 1,000 people get jobs to have money to spend at the grocery store, increasing its sales, allowing it to hire more people?

If your population of 1,000 is fully employed, and the demand for workers is fully met, the extra 1,000 people have no jobs, meaning no money, meaning no increased sales at the store.

Someone has to take the risk of investing their time and money in an idea they think people will pay for. Then, they can start heiring the unemployed, who can then spend their money at the store, increasing their sales, and allowing them to expand and hire more people.

You're thinking way too much into this. The extra people got jobs by offering services to the people. The point is that with more demand will come more supply. The demand for workers is fully met when there are 1,000 citizens, and as the new citizens filter in, the demand for workers goes up, providing jobs for the new citizens.

 

[Tom Ace]

It is simple: when you lower taxes, you raise government revenue. When you lower taxes, people spend and there is more need for product, so more people are hired and more taxes are paid. Why are so many participating in this forum thread not aware of basic economic theory; a theory that has been tested throughout history?

Bob

I'm not sure. Why are you so ignorant of economic theory? Lowering taxes doesn't raise revenue. I know your ideas sound great, but they don't actually work in practice. See the 1980s and 1990s for the evidence.

 

[cipher6]

That's a weird argument. In a society, everyone has to put in what they can. The rich like being ultrarich. Fine. I have no problem with that. Just contribute what you should then. If they don't want to contribute that much, then they can stop being ultrarich. If they want to keep the wealth disparity where it is, then they need to accept the responsibility that comes along with it. Otherwise you get an 18th-century, Marie-Antoinette situation.

You still haven't outlined what your basing your estimation of what the rich "should" pay on.

You said the deficit, but never address how much you think of current spending is necessary.

You haven't even shown that raising taxes to your acceptable levels, would close budget gaps.

You haven't shown your tax proposals would be sustainable, and spending wouldn't out pace revenue in the future... have you look at projected social security and Medicaid pay outs for the next few decades as the baby boomers retire.

You've failed to address or even acknowledged how your tax rates would effect economic activity, adjusting the revenue/expenditures again. You refuse to accept tax policy effects economic activity and job creation. You simply say you don't want to raise taxes to the point people quit starting businesses and creating jobs... but is the level that stifles economic growth enough to close the budget gap?

You've failed to address the role demographics plays in economic policy.

You've done nothing be claim the "rich" (you haven't even defined "rich") need to pay their "fair share." And pulled some number out of your hat you claim is "fair share." BTW your numbers hit the middle and lower classes with large tax hikes, but then you say the rich should pay more because they have too much of a burden now.

This is not a reasoned discussion, its just you repeating the rich should pay more in taxes.

 

[Tom Ace]

Prove it.

I just did in another post, but basically, we can't realistically cut 40% of our total budget.

Ok... taking your 20% are rich... that means that the rich pay 80% of the taxes paid in this country.

That means that the lower 80% of earning citizens... only paid 20% of the taxes in this country... so yes... when 80% are paying only 20% and 20% are paying 80%... they are almost the only ones paying taxes.

Wow, that was not even a good effort. I already laid it out. 53% of the country pays federal income tax. Even with the generous designation of 20% of the country being rich, that means 33% of the country who are not rich are paying taxes. That 20% might pay a large chunk of the taxes, but there are still a whole lot of non-rich people paying taxes. So, no, rich people aren't almost the only ones paying taxes, as you said.

So, I'm trying to understand your point that people who make less money... make less money.

Man, if you're having trouble with that simple point, it's no wonder you're having trouble with my actual point. That point is the amount of money each group makes. Yes, 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes, but that's because individually they make so much more. Even after taxes, a member of that top 10% makes over 5 times more than the a member of the other 90% does before taxes.

So, what you are saying is that those who make less money don't have a responsibility to pay taxes?

Where do you get this stuff? What I'm saying is those who make much more money have a much bigger responsibility. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to take 3% from people averaging $15,000 a year, while taking more than 18% from people averaging $335,000 a year.

The bigger responsibility? No, the responsibility is the same no matter HOW much you make. You live in this country, you have a responsibility to support it.

This country isn't more some people's responsibility and less others.

It's everyone's responsibility, and the more you get from this country, the bigger responsibility you have to it. So, no, the responsibility is not the same no matter how much you make.

This is a laughable retort to that statement.

Yeah... why should we agree that taking money by force from one person, and giving it to someone else simply for the sake of doing so... is a bad thing.

Is it really impossible for you to have a conversation without using misleading language like "by force from one person"? Unless you're a rich person hoping to get richer, you should agree that a society that provides for the whole society is the best society possible.

Of course, I'm sure you would think it was bad if I showed up at your house with a gun and took your money by force and gave it to someone who "values it" more.

Of course I would, but then that's not even close to analogous to what I propose. It's no wonder you disagree with my posts. You have these glasses on that only allow you to see things the way you've been conditioned to rather than how they really are. It's sad really.

 

[cipher6]

I'm not sure why you need specific numbers. What I'm saying is we need spending cuts and tax increases.

I'd say we need spending cuts and increased revenue... that increased revenue could be achieved with higher taxes, or increased economic activity or both... thats the point I'm trying to get across to you, your hyper focused on making the "rich" pay their "fair share," a very subjective argument.

The way I propose to maintain those levels is to not let government spending to constantly increase.

If you can make magic proposals like that, so can I, I propose we balance the budget without tax increases.

Government spending is going to climb, fast, as baby boomers retire and start collecting social security. Raising taxes to meet 2015 levels doesn't mean you have enough to meet 2020 levels. You get stuck in a tax raising cycle, until you've destroyed your class of tax payers and job creators.

As I said, what we need to do is figure out what we need, and tax accordingly.

Or you figure out at what tax level is economic activity not negatively effected, then plan your budget around what you have available... In reality you do both, but your focused on this raise taxes on the rich as the answer to everything.

Can you even show if raising taxes to your proposed levels would balance the budget? Would raising taxes to the levels required to balance the budget slow economic growth?

You're thinking way too much into this. The extra people got jobs by offering services to the people.

Your not thinking enough, thats the problem.

Yes, these people need to get jobs, providing a service or a product. That requires someone to start a business, providing a service/good, then the extra people can get these jobs. If it was that simple why do the countries with the fastest growing populations also have people starving in the street and huge unemployment?

If no one starts the business, that offers the job, the extra people can't get jobs offering services.

 

[Tom Ace]

You're right... some people can't afford more taxes, so... raise taxes on those who can... that's a good plan. We'll keep that up until NO ONE can afford to pay more taxes.

Why don't we just keep it up until everyone is paying the right share of the taxes? That would be the better plan, which is why I propose it.

Like they have to justify owning that much? Like being rich is a privilege that we give them?

They don't have to justify it, but it definitely is a privilege we give them. The CEO of a company is only rich because of the workers making 1/235 of his salary.

Let the poor contribute what they should, before you ask the rich to contribute any more than they already do.

OK, and since that's done, now we're asking for the rich to contribute what they should.

The responsibility for this country is EVERYONE'S. Not just the rich.

That's exactly right. That's why everyone should contribute what they reasonably can. That means the rich contribute more than they are now.

If they don't want the government to take their money by force, then they should just not have any... reasonable argument.

It's sad that you can't actually argue against what I'm really saying, so you resort to twisting and mischaracterizing it, so that you can continue to argue against it. If you don't want to fix computers, you probably shouldn't get a job as helpdesk support. If you don't want to pay your fair share in taxes, then you shouldn't make that much money.

Ahh... I see. That's where the employees will rise up and chop the heads off of their employers and then stand outside his office confused on payday wondering why they have NO money?

Or they'd take over the business and all make more money, but then I'm not assuming that all of those people would be complete morons.

How is 80% of income taxes paid NOT their fair share.

Let's go with a real number at 70%. And that includes non-rich people. I already explained how it's not their fair share. You're welcome to go back and read it.

And I accept that everyone has a responsibility to support the government via taxes... EVERYONE. Period. That includes the freeloaders.

Yes, everyone has a responsibility to support the government. Some can't pay taxes because they make so little, though.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Perhaps it is time to give up. Some of you have tried to use actual facts to support well understood economic principals. And some prefer to ignore the facts and go on their merry way thinking they actually know a thing or two.

Bob

 

[JimmyRayBob]

As I said, what we need to do is figure out what we need, and tax accordingly.

That's how i do it at my house ... i decide what i need, and then i go get the money .... oh ... dang ... that doesn't work ....

 

[byteware]

Even after taxes, a member of that top 10% makes over 5 times more than the a member of the other 90% does before taxes.

They make 5 times more... and pay 21 times more in taxes.

That seems fair.

Where do you get this stuff? What I'm saying is those who make much more money have a much bigger responsibility. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to take 3% from people averaging $15,000 a year, while taking more than 18% from people averaging $335,000 a year.

No, they don't have a "much bigger responsibility", just because they earn more money.

What you are saying is that some people have absolutely NO responsibility.

It's everyone's responsibility, and the more you get from this country, the bigger responsibility you have to it. So, no, the responsibility is not the same no matter how much you make.

See, by this definition then those that receive free money from this country have a MUCH bigger responsibility than those that EARN their money.

Those rich people earning big salaries aren't getting from this country, they are earning money.

The only people getting from this country are leeches.

Is it really impossible for you to have a conversation without using misleading language like "by force from one person"?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize taxes were voluntary.

Unless you're a rich person hoping to get richer, you should agree that a society that provides for the whole society is the best society possible.

Unless you are intellectual dishonest, you should agree that a society that has one group supported by another is bound to collapse upon itself unless something is done to force the leeching group to become self sufficient.

Of course I would, but then that's not even close to analogous to what I propose. It's no wonder you disagree with my posts. You have these glasses on that only allow you to see things the way you've been conditioned to rather than how they really are. It's sad really.

Again, this goes back to taxes being optional, and there's no jail time associated with not paying your taxes.

Taxes are taken by threat of force. If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. Period.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

The CEO of a company is only rich because of the workers making 1/235 of his salary.

Wow ... just ... wow. Hard work, taking risks, having a great idea and a million other things don't have anything to do with getting rich. It's only because of the workers.