Would the rich miss 5%?

rivrrat said:

It's still theft. But a very tiny amount of taxation is necessary to in order to have a government at all. Very tiny.

However, I'm perfectly fine with sectioning off a part of the country and designate it as the anarchist area. Then give people the choice to pay a tiny amount of taxes to fund a fire, police and judicial system and live in the area where those operate, or to not pay those funds and live in the anarchist area where they don't operate. I have no issue with that at all. But unless we are willing to quarantine off such an area, a small amount of theft will be necessary to sustain a very small, functional government.

Click to expand...

Why is Fire and Police necessary but things like Education, healthcare, roads, air traffic regulation, parks and rec.....aren't?

disneydude said:

Why is Fire and Police necessary but things like Education, healthcare, roads, air traffic regulation, parks and rec.....aren't?

Click to expand...

Those can be more efficiently run by the private sector. Things like defense, police and a judicial system require the government because they require equal enforcement of laws that we have put into place. The private sector cannot guarantee equal enforcement, therefore that must fall to an 'unbiased' third party - the government.

rivrrat said:

It's still theft. But a very tiny amount of taxation is necessary to in order to have a government at all. Very tiny.

Click to expand...

Okay. At least you are consistent on that.

However, I'm perfectly fine with sectioning off a part of the country and designate it as the anarchist area. Then give people the choice to pay a tiny amount of taxes to fund a fire, police and judicial system and live in the area where those operate, or to not pay those funds and live in the anarchist area where they don't operate. I have no issue with that at all. But unless we are willing to quarantine off such an area, a small amount of theft will be necessary to sustain a very small, functional government.

Click to expand...

You do realize that even the tiny government is still a Hobbesian Social Contract no?

I think your view of the world would work where people are inherently good. But I've been around the block to know that people steal, cheat and lie. I'm not sure how you could run a functioning capitalist society that maintains the framework of capitalism on a tiny, tiny, tiny government.

obvious Child said:

So you prefer the natural state of man? Anarchy? Where everything is decided by violence?

I wasn't aware that every country was Totalitarian. After all, they all engage in the Social Contract, and since you consider that to be the same as totalitarianism, logically it concludes you believe all countries are Totalitarian. Care to support this notion?

Click to expand...

I didn't sign any contract. But according to Hobbes, in order to have a "social contract", one must freely give up ALL of one's liberties and freedoms to a single ruler. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.

That's pretty much all I know about it because quite frankly, I don't give a **** what Hobbes thought. What I do care about is the here and now.

rivrrat said:

Those can be more efficiently run by the private sector. Things like defense, police and a judicial system require the government because they require equal enforcement of laws that we have put into place. The private sector cannot guarantee equal enforcement, therefore that must fall to an 'unbiased' third party - the government.

Click to expand...

So you are going to get the private sector to pay for all the roads, parks, health, education?

And who do you think is going to pay for these things? The altruistic corporation?

disneydude said:

So you are going to get the private sector to pay for all the roads, parks, health, education?

And who do you think is going to pay for these things? The altruistic corporation?

Click to expand...

If the people want those things, they will fund them. If they do not, then they must not find them important enough to fund and therefore unnecessary.

rivrrat said:

I didn't sign any contract. But according to Hobbes, in order to have a "social contract", one must freely give up ALL of one's liberties and freedoms to a single ruler. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.

Click to expand...

Uh No. According to Hobbes, man gives up certain freedoms in order for protection and to leave the natural state of man. Nowhere does Hobbes ever argue that man gives up all of his liberties and freedoms to a single ruler.

What I do care about is the here and now.

Click to expand...

You appear not to have dug too deep.

If the people want those things, they will fund them. If they do not, then they must not find them important enough to fund and therefore unnecessary.

Click to expand...

You do realize that you are calling for extreme inefficiencies within the market no? Imagine the cost of goods when every road is toll road. The way to hamstring the economy it to tack on high costs to individuals. As much as there is a free rider problem, communal goods like roads do increase GDP. Paying $5 in taxes a year for roads and reaping the benefits is far more efficient then toll roads up the butt.

rivrrat said:

If the people want those things, they will fund them. If they do not, then they must not find them important enough to fund and therefore unnecessary.

Click to expand...

How is funding them different than paying taxes. Either the private sector is going to pass on the costs to the consumer or the government is going to do it by taxes.

The alternative is to say that it is based on income. Only rich people can use the roads because they will be toll based. Only rich people can be educated because only they can pay the education.

Yeah....that is the making of a great society.

rivrrat said:

So, taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots' doesn't work, eh?

That is what you're advocating though.

What will "fix" the healthcare system to get the ****ing government's nose out of it along with getting rid of health insurance altogether AND tort reform.

None of the bull**** coming from our retards in govt right now are actually addressing the issue. All they are doing is essentially taking $20 from one person and giving it to another.

Lastly, if I had more of my money to give my family, they wouldn't NEED any government assistance. But instead, my money is stolen from me by the thousands, making it impossible for me to give my family the support they need.

What you and others like you seem to advocate is just that... take so much of our money away that our only choice is to rely on the government. And I say, **** that.

Click to expand...

thing is though the more money we have the more we tend to blow it on **** we don't need.

most of my friends don't have health insurance and claim they can't afford it. but somehow they can afford sports cars and cocaine.

also when your neighbor drives a BMW it forces you to get one as well. so its an endless rat race.

now if the government took away an equal amount of money from your neighbor as well as you then you would both be driving a toyota but you wouldn't feel bad about it because everything is relative and relative to each other you would still be the same.

on the other hand for that money the government could give you health insurance which you could have gotten yourself before but you wouldn't have because you were engaged in a competition with your neighbor for who has the most expensive rims on his car.

disneydude said:

You never hear them complain about taxes on the middle class and the poor...but they sure do squawk when the rich are asked to pay.

Click to expand...

That's a joke. I would think many of us here are middle class, unless I am poor and just don't realize it. On second thought, maybe I'm rich and just don't realize it.

Happy Days said:

What do you think, would people earning over $250K a year miss 5%?

Click to expand...

No.


_____

jamesrage said:

$12,500 can buy a lot of things in this country so yes they would miss it just as a man making $30,000 a year would miss $1,500 if the government took an extra 5% out of his check.$12,500 can buy a car, plus thats a lot of hours of your life working that you will never get back.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that rich people are typically spending $12,500 on a car? While $12,500 may be a lot to some people, it really isn't a lot to others. I think a lot of people are missing that point.

Depends on your lifestyle really. If you spend 80% of 250K on monthly bills etc 5% could be missed. However if you spend just 30-45% of your income(that would go for I guess bachelors) than I don't really see how you'd miss it until you realize you're not saving as much for retirement. Either way it shouldn't be a matter of what you'll miss but what is a reasonable amount to distribute.

What a lot of these economic connoisseurs do not seem to realize is that it's not about giving to the have nots and taking from the haves. It's a matter of what a responsible position is. Name me a single sociologist who will argue that it makes sense to go back to a time before welfare and you will have found yourself an idiot. We simply do not have enough jobs in America for the poor to work and even if we did they wouldn't pay enough to keep up with the rising costs of living in America.

Poverty relates to nutrition, nutrition to health and finally health to available work force. You have a poor population, you have a population which is unable to properly feed itself, this in turn leads to health problems and health problems affect the number of people able to work. It becomes a downward spiral that doesn't really see an end.

Happy Days said:

Do you honestly think that rich people are typically spending $12,500 on a car? While $12,500 may be a lot to some people, it really isn't a lot to others. I think a lot of people are missing that point.

Click to expand...

$12,500 can go towards a car in their case, and it can buy a lot of things. . 40 hours(assuming someone making that much isn't working longer than 40 hours a week) a week equals 1920 hours a year and divided that into $250,000 that is basically a $130.21 an hour. Which that boils down to that $12,500 equaling 96 plus work hours, thats two and a half weeks worth of work that went to the government per 5%. So yes someone would miss that money and it is a straight up lie to say it wouldn't be missed.

Happy Days said:

What do you mean, "because they didn't buy their own"? That wasn't part of the discussion. If we all paid a percentage of our income then we could work together and provide healthcare for everyone. If someone is sick then they need to be able to see a doctor to get well. We are a civilized nation, not a bunch of selfish gits who don't care about our fellow countrymen, aren't we?

Click to expand...

Why is it greedy to want to keep the money you earned to use as you see fit...

...but its not greedy to want the government to take money from someone else to give you something for free using money you haven't worked to earn?

Why is the first person a "selfish git" but the second person you seem to have no condemnation for?

Isn't both cases wanting SOMETHING at the expense of someone else?

lizzie said:

That's a joke. I would think many of us here are middle class, unless I am poor and just don't realize it. On second thought, maybe I'm rich and just don't realize it.

Click to expand...

Its a joke because its typical hyper partisan Disney bullcrap using a false premise.

Name me three politicians in the past 2 decades that have came out and said "We're going to raise taxes on the middle class" or "We're going to raise t taxes on the lowest 5%".

Now name me three politicians who have stated in the past 2 decades that we need to "raise taxes on the upper class" or "We're going to raise taxes on the top 5%".

Guess which of those tasks will be easier.

Its hard to argue against something that doesn't get generally proposed. The taxes that are on the middle class generally come in the form of camaflauge...your cigerette taxes are going up, your utility taxes are going up, etc. And you're going to tell me you don't hear conservatives complaining about those things? Cause I'm pretty sure they have been recently.

No, you hear the loudest cries when they're thinking to tax the upper class (tax the upper class to pay off the debt. tax the upper class for health care. tax the upper class for education. its the default "that's how we'll pay for it" plan) because that's the one that gets talked about the most often, the loudest, and the most blatant because of the hope of playing against class warfare tendancies of the population.

And because its the most in your face and obvious then the complaints against it are generally the loudest as well to counter act it.

Its a false dichotomy and premise that Disney is smart enough to know, but hyper partisan enough to ignore to get his litle dig in.

Happy Days said:

What do you think, would people earning over $250K a year miss 5%?

Click to expand...

Of course they'll miss it. People forget that people who earn a lot spend a lot on their home. And that they still have a mortgage to pay not including escrow, utilities, it all adds up. And then include a raising income tax and a raising property tax. What? You think they are earning a lot of money? No not after all the taxes they have to pay plus the mortgage.
If you want to see a solution to the problems in this country. Put different people into the government, what is wrong with the government are the lawmakers. They are complete idiots when it comes down to balancing a budget. You can't spend more than you take in, and NO it isn't a solution to just raise taxes. That doesn't work. A major problem with these lawmakers is that they are reckless with our money because it isn't theirs. So they spend it like an addict. They never know what their limit is until they have hit rock bottom and then it even takes them a long time to realize that they have hitten rock bottom.
The only solution for them is to see hundreds of thousands of people fed up with paying taxes in Washington D.C. and these protestors should be armed to the teeth with automatic guns and frag grenades and high powered rifles. That'll get the message through to them.

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:

Of course they'll miss it. People forget that people who earn a lot spend a lot on their home. And that they still have a mortgage to pay not including escrow, utilities, it all adds up. And then include a raising income tax and a raising property tax. What? You think they are earning a lot of money? No not after all the taxes they have to pay plus the mortgage.
If you want to see a solution to the problems in this country. Put different people into the government, what is wrong with the government are the lawmakers. They are complete idiots when it comes down to balancing a budget. You can't spend more than you take in, and NO it isn't a solution to just raise taxes. That doesn't work. A major problem with these lawmakers is that they are reckless with our money because it isn't theirs. So they spend it like an addict. They never know what their limit is until they have hit rock bottom and then it even takes them a long time to realize that they have hitten rock bottom.
.

Click to expand...

Where is it written that just because you make a lot of money that you MUST have a big house and big mortgage, etc.?
That is a trap. I know some rich people in AZ and UT, even live among the rich at my Utah residence. The latest economic downturn caught some of them by surprise. They are losing their homes despite their high incomes, because they bought much more home than they need. You have to balance income to outgo, and just because you have high income doesn't mean you have to spend it all and then some.
Smart people realize that income can fluctuate depending on the economy, and they adjust their lives accordingly. Keep some money in reserve, stay away from excess debt, etc.
That applies to govt as well...

Lets put it in a way that everyone will agree (hopefully).

Someone earning $250,000 + annually will miss 5% much less than a person earning $50,000 would miss the same 5%. When we diverge in absolutism, it is almost certain nobody will agree

UtahBill said:

Where is it written that just because you make a lot of money that you MUST have a big house and big mortgage, etc.?
That is a trap. I know some rich people in AZ and UT, even live among the rich at my Utah residence. The latest economic downturn caught some of them by surprise. They are losing their homes despite their high incomes, because they bought much more home than they need. You have to balance income to outgo, and just because you have high income doesn't mean you have to spend it all and then some.
Smart people realize that income can fluctuate depending on the economy, and they adjust their lives accordingly. Keep some money in reserve, stay away from excess debt, etc.
That applies to govt as well...

Click to expand...

What has ever happened to its my money and I can spend it the way I want to? Most people-including the rich-are consumers, that's why they have the big house, the nice cars. Because they enjoy to spend money, too.

where do you get that idea?

liblady said:

where do you get that idea?

Click to expand...

i thought it was part of the American dream?

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:

What has ever happened to its my money and I can spend it the way I want to? Most people-including the rich-are consumers, that's why they have the big house, the nice cars. Because they enjoy to spend money, too.

Click to expand...

You call yourself a moderate yet you agree with excessive spending? If you spend more than you earn, and use debt to do that, you are at risk of losing it all when your source of income gets reduced. Lots of people who are supposedly well educated and should know better are getting that lesson rammed home right now...

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:

i thought it was part of the American dream?

Click to expand...

Seems the dream has become a nightmare to many, perhaps the dream was funded with borrowed money?

UtahBill said:

You call yourself a moderate yet you agree with excessive spending? If you spend more than you earn, and use debt to do that, you are at risk of losing it all when your source of income gets reduced. Lots of people who are supposedly well educated and should know better are getting that lesson rammed home right now...

Click to expand...

No, I am a moderate. All I am saying is that if a high income earner wants to spend money on a big house, then let them. I don't agree with excessive spending from the government, and I don't want to tell other people how to spend their money. Like I said even high income earners are consumers, they pay for higher prices for thier goods. Its just the way things are.