Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: 50% tax rate for high earners

  1. #71
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    I don't really care.

    The rich has had a damn sweet ride in UK for the last decade - The rest of us do not have a option of moving abroad if taxes rise, we pay taxes. Why shouldn't they?




    Seems fair to me tho i do think as well as raising it 5% on the rich, they should bring it up by 1/2% on everyone.
    You're a communist who doesn't respect private property.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You're a communist who doesn't respect private property.
    If that is an insult, i'm not getting it ...


  3. #73
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That is a communist ideal that is like liberty a pipe dream.
    I see Ethereal and I were correct from the outset. You are indeed quite ignorant about liberty, else you would not consider it a pipe dream.

    Unsurprising also that you would be ignorant about charity, and imprudently deride it as a "failing."

    Charity is not failure, nor is liberty a pipe dream. Liberty is a very real and very necessary condition for human life to reach its fullest flower. Charity is the culmination of liberty, and is predicated upon liberty. Where there is no liberty there is no charity.

    Far from being failure, charity is liberty's victory over misfortune. Liberty is the choice of the free man to in his prosperity be generous to his less fortunate neighbors. Indeed, the United States is a living demonstration of this reality and this virtue, for not only does the United States government give more in foreign aid to the impoverished nations of the world, but United States citizens contribute more to charitable causes than any other nation. Liberty enables charity. Liberty encourages charity. Society does neither, and can do neither.

    The flaw in the Marxist thesis (and your rhetoric is quite Marxist in nature, even if you opt to disclaim him as your inspiration) is the illusion that society has any power to act. Society does not act, for society does not choose, nor can it decide. Action, decision, choice, are expressions of the mind and of the will, each intrinsic only to the individual, and never to the collective.

    There is no consciousness in the group; at best there is consensus, but no more than this. Thus neither can there be will, nor mind, and from this it can be seen that the group cannot choose, cannot decide, and will never act.

    Thus in any society liberty becomes the inevitable supreme civic virtue; liberty is the recognition that, though man may seek the communion of his neighbors, he must choose, decide, and act as an individual man. Though man desires the companionship of his fellows, he must answer for his sins alone, and so it follows that he must enjoy first claim to the fruits of his industry alone.

    When a man is thus charged to answer for himself, and rewarded with the fruits of his own industry, he is given every reason to seek always the wise choice, the prudent decision, the careful act, to chart a path that maximizes his own prosperity. When the charge and the reward are remove from a man, his reason for wise choice and prudent decision diminish. To the degree that men are denied both charge and reward, to that degree men inspired to unwise deeds.

    By charging charity a failure of society, you charge that men should not answer for themselves, nor should enjoy reward of their labors. You charge that the group as a whole must answer for each individual, and must likewise have prior claim to the fruits of the individual's labor. Your charge against charity admits of no other origin, for society--the group--cannot so fail unless it is first endowed with the charge and with the claim. Thus your charge against charity is wrong; it proceeds from the wrong view of society and a wrong understanding of liberty and its necessity.

    Thus it is that your rhetoric and your politics are completely, unalterably, and unmistakably wrong.
    Last edited by celticlord; 04-24-09 at 09:52 PM.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    So where will all the rock stars who live in Switzerland for tax reasons go?

  5. #75
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    If that is an insult, i'm not getting it ...
    No insult, just fact.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #76
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I see Ethereal and I were correct from the outset. You are indeed quite ignorant about liberty, else you would not consider it a pipe dream.

    Unsurprising also that you would be ignorant about charity, and imprudently deride it as a "failing."

    Charity is not failure, nor is liberty a pipe dream. Liberty is a very real and very necessary condition for human life to reach its fullest flower. Charity is the culmination of liberty, and is predicated upon liberty. Where there is no liberty there is no charity.

    Far from being failure, charity is liberty's victory over misfortune. Liberty is the choice of the free man to in his prosperity be generous to his less fortunate neighbors. Indeed, the United States is a living demonstration of this reality and this virtue, for not only does the United States government give more in foreign aid to the impoverished nations of the world, but United States citizens contribute more to charitable causes than any other nation. Liberty enables charity. Liberty encourages charity. Society does neither, and can do neither.

    The flaw in the Marxist thesis (and your rhetoric is quite Marxist in nature, even if you opt to disclaim him as your inspiration) is the illusion that society has any power to act. Society does not act, for society does not choose, nor can it decide. Action, decision, choice, are expressions of the mind and of the will, each intrinsic only to the individual, and never to the collective.

    There is no consciousness in the group; at best there is consensus, but no more than this. Thus neither can there be will, nor mind, and from this it can be seen that the group cannot choose, cannot decide, and will never act.

    Thus in any society liberty becomes the inevitable supreme civic virtue; liberty is the recognition that, though man may seek the communion of his neighbors, he must choose, decide, and act as an individual man. Though man desires the companionship of his fellows, he must answer for his sins alone, and so it follows that he must enjoy first claim to the fruits of his industry alone.

    When a man is thus charged to answer for himself, and rewarded with the fruits of his own industry, he is given every reason to seek always the wise choice, the prudent decision, the careful act, to chart a path that leads maximizes his own prosperity. When the charge and the reward are remove from a man, his reason for wise choice and prudent decision diminish. To the degree that men are denied both charge and reward, to that degree men inspired to unwise deeds.

    By charging charity a failure of society, you charge that men should not answer for themselves, nor should enjoy reward of their labors. You charge that the group as a whole must answer for each individual, and must likewise have prior claim to the fruits of the individual's labor. Your charge against charity admits of no other origin, for society--the group--cannot so fail unless it is first endowed with the charge and with the claim. Thus your charge against charity is wrong; it proceeds from the wrong view of society and a wrong understanding of liberty and its necessity.

    Thus it is that your rhetoric and your politics are completely, unalterably, and unmistakably wrong.
    Gee I thought I said he didn't understand liberty.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I own the factory I work at. My ownership is represented with shares of stock but I own a portion non the less.

    The same goes with banks unless its a credit union, in that scenario the account holders are the owners.



    They had to do something to get to that point in life.

    They didn't just wake up and say I'll make a few calls and become a corporate CEO today.

    When you manage a business of that size there is a lot of responsibility and pressure.

    Just look at the former CEO of Freddie Mac, he killed himself and he was a freaking millionaire.
    I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.

    Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.

    And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.

    There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.

  8. #78
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Some of the richest people in society are corporate execs, and what do they do that's so important that warrants them having tens of millions of dollars to their name? Doctors, teachers, engineers, the people who do the real work and build societies, make much less than people who own the banks, and who own the factories.

    I don't feel the need to shed a tear when the people getting a free ride on the labour of others are suddenly taxed higher for their overinflated earnings. There is no threat to the economy by doing so. So execs. will make $500 000 per year instead of $1 million. Oh no, how awful!
    The problem Orius mate is that the rich and corporations don't actually pay much in taxes, the tax system in fact helps to support them, big business and economic consolidation. The rich and corps can far more easily push their tax burden onto others and they get enough from the state to offset it anyway.

    For instance take one of the myriad examples; did you know that heavy trucks do just about 100% of roadbed damage and yet in the US these vehicles and their owners pay less than 50% of the money to maintain the road system? (figures take from Kevin Carson's Organisation Theory: A libertarian perspective.)The subsidies to industry, and particularly large industry are immense.

    This idea of large taxes for the rich is not going to achieve much and is trying to use the system they control against them while leaving them with still most of the control.

    You'd do better to lower the amount of state intervention in the economy and the level of gov't a lot of thing take place at, sure start with those that more obviously benefit the wealthy but when they are gone a lot of the rest will be less necessary anyway.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #79
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.

    Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.

    And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.

    There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.
    You are largely right although I do think the decline of community(See Robert Nisbet's The Quest for Community.) predates neo-liberalism, even though that has accelerated it and I don't believe the state alone by far can replace it or reconstitute it. What we need is a reflowering of healthy, small-scale or federative voluntary and "natural" associations harmed by the rise of the state, urbanisation and industrialism in my opinion.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #80
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: 50% tax rate for high earners

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I think the baby boomer generation represents a lot of people who worked hard for their money, but post-baby boomer generation represents a bunch of people who are handed down old money.
    I'm going to have to disagree with this considering the U.S. gov is spending bucket loads just on them.

    The younger generation is being left with the bill.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Second to that, in hard economic times it makes much more sense to tax those who can afford it than to increase taxes on the lower brackets who clearly cannot endure anymore.
    It makes even better sense to save for hard times or cut spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    And finally, given that in most Western nations, legislated wage increases are becoming less and less frequent yet inflation continues to proceed, I support taxing the rich to provide further government services and projects that help the poor.
    Wages have gone up very well in the past 20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    There's no point in having a society or civilization if the burden is not distributed fairly. Community is already disappearing with the rise of urbanization around the world, and given how the effects of globalization are causing economic chain reactions like the current global recession, the rich must step in and fill the gap for the problems they created. These are the consequences of neo-liberalization.
    I agree that is why requiring one group to pay a larger percentage isn't fair by any means.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •