• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unfair upper-income taxation

Jack Hays said:
And that is why we have the system we have. The lower half (roughly) of US earners pay no federal income tax at all.
Click to expand...

Because the wealthy dominate our [entire nation including the economy] and squeeze out wages from working class, to earn ever increasing higher share of earnings. This will only get worse, it's a trend, do you see the trend?

income.jpg

Now, do you know why this trend is the way it is? Because they can. That's the only reason. Take two people, a boss, and an employee, input X number of dollars. Who has by far the greatest leverage in determining how to split that?
Do it again, with the CEO of a fortune 500 and a mail room clerk.
Again, Wall Street Executive vs person putting their money into a mutual fund.
gain, again, do it for everyone. And that's exactly what you get, a crazy lopsided, ever-worsening, distribution.

The only thing crazier than this, is all the fools who defend it while they suck on **** wages for their literally priceless life's work.
 
Mach said:
Because the wealthy dominate our [entire nation including the economy] and squeeze out wages from working class, to earn ever increasing higher share of earnings. This will only get worse, it's a trend, do you see the trend?

View attachment 67224701

No, do you know why this trend is the way it is? Because they can. That's the only reason. Take two people, a boss, and an employee, input X number of dollars. Who has by far the greatest leverage in determining how to split that?
Do it again, with the CEO of a fortune 500 and a mail room clerk.
Again, Wall Street Executive vs person putting their money into a mutual fund.
gain, again, do it for everyone. And that's exactly what you get, a crazy lopsided, ever-worsening, distribution.

The only thing crazier than this, is all the idiots who defend while they suck on **** wages for their literally priceless life's work.
Click to expand...

So what?
 
calamity said:
Why punish people for earning more money? It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.
Click to expand...
How is it a disincentive?

You earn more, you make more, that's a fact, it doesn't change due to taxation.

Which capitalists, speaking domestically, refused profit/growth on the basis they would have to pay more taxes?
 
Jack Hays said:
So what?
Click to expand...

You claimed people in that bottom 20% paying little to no taxes is unfair.
Do you believe the income distribution trend resulting from a dramatically lopsided balance of power, is fair?
Why did I have to spell that out...
(lowest income levels likely net GAIN from federal taxes BTW, they don't just pay nothing).
 
Mach said:
You claimed people in that bottom 20% paying little to no taxes is unfair.
Do you believe the income distribution trend resulting from a dramatically lopsided balance of power, is fair?
Why did I have to spell that out...
(lowest income levels likely net GAIN from federal taxes BTW, they don't just pay nothing).
Click to expand...

I never said anything like that. I said the bottom 50% paying nothing was just fine.
 
Jack Hays said:
I never said anything like that. I said the bottom 50% paying nothing was just fine.
Click to expand...
Well ****, then I ****ing agree with you.
:)

Apologies!
 
Lafayette said:
ETHOS



You're exaggerating. I'm not saying "everything is better".

I am saying two-attributes are better in the EU than in the US; that is, both attributes are key to "good-living". (And I don't mean "his 'n her" Ferraris!)

They are very lo-cost National Healthcare Service and Post-secondary Education. The former is requisite for a long and healthy life, the second central to a decent standard-of-living for all and not just some.

Neither of those two Very Important Public Services mentioned are beyond the reach of any people on earth who recognize and desire Good Lifestyles in varying degrees. "Success" is not a goal measured in just monetary terms. Well-being for all is the ultimate success of a nation.

There is no comparison between the French and the Americans. Both are very, very different animals intellectually. Both could have (but do not yet have) the uniform distribution for all of the two key attributes mentioned above. It's not rocket-science. It is just a matter of willingness and "ethos"

But as long as America remains fixated on "winners" and the sole identifier is "Muney, muney, muney", then we (are off an a gaming-track to nowhere. We do not understand that for any such "game" to have some winners, it needs plenty of losers.

Money should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is in defining those end-points that a nation makes its well-being. Foremost amongst said end-points should be a market-economy that assures sufficient means for all to live secure and healthy lives.

Texas these past few days has shown how bad we, as a nation, are at selecting the right end-points. What is it that makes a sociopath out of a young man who should have had everything to live for but chose death - and he would take 26 people with him to underscore his disappointment.

What happened in Texas is just one more fault-line in a long, long list ...
Click to expand...

Taking the last point first, I do hear of folks doing horrible things to others in Europe using cars, trucks, knives, guns and bombs. There is a long list of these incidents in Europe as well as the US. The US seems to produce more efficient murderers, but they produce more efficient everythings.

In any "market" consideration, "Muney" is necessarily a part of the measure. Having more money to spread around creates more "winners". As JFK said so famously, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Regarding healthcare, wait times and selection of those to care for create interesting and horrifying stories in Europe. Wait times broken down by state in the US in ER's are measured in a few minutes before a doctor is seen. In Canada and other countries that provide "free" medical treatment, the wait time is measured in hours.

Education is an interesting product. I have heard it described as the only product that people strive to obtain less than is purchased. However it is described, though, the measure of the value of education available is the benefit that is produced. That benefit can be measured globally, nationally, locally or by all populations and by almost any metric.

YOU have set the bar as one that measures the cost to obtain compared to the ultimate benefit. Other than GDP, what measure is there that is reliable and not utterly subjective? COST BENEFIT RATIO seems to demand a comparison of cost to benefit.

What metric do your propose to use that provides the measure you recommend?

Obese people and smokers 'banned from routine surgery' as NHS attempts to cut spending costs | The Independent

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ting-times-crisis-revealed-in-labour-research

https://projects.propublica.org/emergency/

Medical wait times up to 3 times longer in Canada - Health - CBC News
 
code1211 said:
What metric do your propose to use that provides the measure you recommend?
Click to expand...

There's not just one, like "so many miles per gallon".

There are several, and (from an economics point of view) the metrics should be established by Industry and then SocioEconomic Objectives.

The former is far easier than the latter. It is more objective, and the latter far more subjective. Both are equally important, however.

It would make an excellent subject for a Doctoral thesis en Economics ...
 
Lafayette said:
There's not just one, like "so many miles per gallon".

There are several, and (from an economics point of view) the metrics should be established by Industry and then SocioEconomic Objectives.

The former is far easier than the latter. It is more objective, and the latter far more subjective. Both are equally important, however.

It would make an excellent subject for a Doctoral thesis en Economics ...
Click to expand...

It sounds like there are none that you can describe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom