- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 2,104
- Location
- In your dreams...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
prove that and prove that progressive tax rates cause that.
I call total BS.
Education is a lie! :roll:
prove that and prove that progressive tax rates cause that.
I call total BS.
constantly
the class warfare jihadists constantly claim i don't want to pay any taxes
in reality I only want to pay my fair share based on what I use and my share of common benefits. In other words, I should pay far less than I do since I don't get any additional de jure benefits for facing a de jure much higher tax bill than most voters
Education is a lie! :roll:
They should tx the rich based on their characters. Maybe then you'd feel it was fair?
I chatted with a guy who said there should be zero taxes. He claimed that people would pay up if anything went wrong in their community. I roundly defeated him in that argument. How naive can people be?
Don't believe it happens if it makes you feel better. But those of us who argue for lower taxes know all too well that it does.
constantly
the class warfare jihadists constantly claim i don't want to pay any taxes
in reality I only want to pay my fair share based on what I use and my share of common benefits. In other words, I should pay far less than I do since I don't get any additional de jure benefits for facing a de jure much higher tax bill than most voters
I don't feel strongly one way or another.
That would depend on how you define 'use'. If American society and economy exists in an equilibrium, and taxes go into maintaining that equilibrium, then as a as a person more heavily invested in the success of the American economy than the average American, you should pay more.
On the flipside, when I said that I think property taxes should not result in forfeiture of the property if you can't pay (presumably some other penalty could be instituted), not even talking about how MUCH they are, I got the standard "IF YOU WANT ROADS AND SCHOOLS AND POLICE AND PUPPIES AND MORNING DEW, YOU HAVE TO PAY TAXES!!!!" (Plus other weirdness which doesn't factor into this thread.)
under a flat tax or a consumption tax the rich will pay more but their rates cannot be constantly voted up by those who suffer no additional rates.
and I reject your opinion that I have a duty to pay more
its actually the middle and lower classes use more government services
Those services maintain American society. You need that society more than them, if not culturally, at least as far as maintaining your wealth goes.
You're rich? I never knew that :shrug: Can I be your fishin' buddy?under a flat tax or a consumption tax the rich will pay more but their rates cannot be constantly voted up by those who suffer no additional rates.
and I reject your opinion that I have a duty to pay more
its actually the middle and lower classes use more government services
BS again. you are making claims you cannot back up in order to justify parasitic taxes on others
tell me, why are you afraid of a flat tax or a consumption tax.
society needs wealthy people in order to subsidize the untalented and the unproductive
you probably labour under the delusion that society GIVES the rich their wealth
You're rich? I never knew that :shrug: Can I be your fishin' buddy?
You're rich? I never knew that :shrug: Can I be your fishin' buddy?
Nobody gives each other anything in capitalism.
actually capitalists tend to be far more charitable to others than socialists and liberals
Yup! As long as I have a pair of waders.....I'm there man. :lol:sure-you like fly fishing?
People generally don't "give" things in capitalism.
Basically, yes, the wealthy need to foot the bill on social welfare programs. But those programs prevent the United States from winding up like a third-world country, with a mobile mass of unskilled laborers. It's better for the wealthy that they pay more taxes than for the United States wind up like a third-world country.
Yup! As long as I have a pair of waders.....I'm there man. :lol:
1) the rich will always pay more taxes-what i object to is allowing the dem politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more and more handouts or entitlements that they won't have to pay any additional taxes for because the rich are saddled with more and more taxes
2) there is no evidence we would end up a third world nation with a flat tax or a consumption tax. we became the greatest nation in the world before we had massive income redistribution and the war on poverty appears to be nothing more than a scheme to create more people addicted to the dem party's handouts
the rich will always pay more taxes-what i object to is allowing the dem politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more and more handouts or entitlements that they won't have to pay any additional taxes for because the rich are saddled with more and more taxes
2) there is no evidence we would end up a third world nation with a flat tax or a consumption tax. we became the greatest nation in the world before we had massive income redistribution and the war on poverty appears to be nothing more than a scheme to create more people addicted to the dem party's handouts
I agree with you, but sadly it is a moot point. When 90% of the voting populace do not qualify as "rich" it will be nigh impossible to make them understand the wisdom behind reducing entitlements. :shrug:
I don't think it's that simple.
Depends on how you define greatness and what period you are talking about. A society can exist with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the few and be very successful in terms of how it relates with other nations, but it's a transitional state. Eventually, the people on the lower rungs will want some of the wealth and power, and will refuse to comply with social and economic norms if they don't get it. Thus, child labor laws went out the window, public education became the norm, unemployment subsidies were instituted, etc.
The United States was a powerful nation at the start of the 20th century, but not egalitarian.