Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:963:1176:1448]

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Ah. So when I point out that the single most successful, most highly-educated ethnic group in America (even more than whites) was the group that had the highest voting percentage for Obama...all you've got is, "ha-rumph, well, um, they must have reasons"....

Yes, they DO have reasons. They can see which side makes sense, and which side doesn't give much of a damn about anyone who isn't the conservative ideal of a "real" American i.e. white Anglo-Saxon protestant who loves guns and the military uber alles....

blacks were the highest voting group for Obama and they aren't the most highly educated ethnic group in America. Asians did not vote for Obama at 93%

Asians voted for Obama at 73% so you are lying

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

which ones?

so tell me what would cause prosperous Asians to vote Dem?

how many come from societies where people are free?

You haven't traveled in Asia much, have you? I have. I've got a house and a LOT of family there.

FYI, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan are first-world free societies, and even among the third world Asian societies, India, Indonesia and the Philippines are free societies...and that last one has sent more immigrants to America since 1986 than any other nation except for Mexico (yes, more than China, too).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Really?

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

Historically, the percentage of liberals are 20 points below the percentage of conservatives, it would seem.

Or perhaps you are reflecting wishful thinking?

How about updating that particular graph, hm?



What's more, guy, you need to think about how they do this poll. Gallup - which did both polls - is notorious for ONLY calling those who have land-lines...and many, perhaps most of today's young people only have cell phones, and so wouldn't be part of the sample...

...which is why Gallup's polls skewed consistently to the right in the polls leading up to the 2012 election.

America's changing...and there's nothing (short of a military coup) that conservatives can do to stop it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

You haven't traveled in Asia much, have you? I have. I've got a house and a LOT of family there.

FYI, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan are first-world free societies, and even among the third world Asian societies, India, Indonesia and the Philippines are free societies...and that last one has sent more immigrants to America since 1986 than any other nation except for Mexico (yes, more than China, too).

if you hate guns I guess you think Japan is free

No fourth amendment rights either.

Your point-as usual-fails

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

all crap. You never ever want to understand the end game. MOre and more keep voting themselves the wealth of others until the wealth runs out and too many people are dependent parasites and the whole thing collapses.

The rant about the caymans is ever more fecal in its stupidity

Of course, of course! And this is why ALL the other first-world democracies - ALL of which have higher taxes than America - are in a deep, deep depression, hm?

Oh, wait - they aren't. Some are having crappy times (thanks to continuation of austerity policies), but most are doing quite well, thank you very much...

...which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what your claims say should happen.



But this is only reality, and as such cannot compare to your fantasy.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

blacks were the highest voting group for Obama and they aren't the most highly educated ethnic group in America. Asians did not vote for Obama at 93%

Asians voted for Obama at 73% so you are lying

I wasn't lying - I was wrong. Do you understand the difference? Someone who believes something that is incorrect is NOT lying when they say that thing. They are lying ONLY if they KNOW they are saying something that is incorrect. So please get your definitions straight.

I thought I had read somewhere that they had voted for Obama at a higher rate than the blacks - which is obviously wrong. Thank you - sincerely - for pointing that out.

That said, they - the most successful, most highly-educated ethnic group (including compared to whites) - still overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The gist of my point still stands...that the conservative claim that those who voted Democratic just want handouts is flat wrong and is easily disproven.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

if you hate guns I guess you think Japan is free

No fourth amendment rights either.

Your point-as usual-fails

But in Japan, health care is a right - while it's not a right in America. And in Japan, their kids are free from having to go through lockdown drills because of the threat of people with guns that may be coming to kill them.

So...it all depends on what you call 'freedom'. I guess they concentrate more on the right to stay alive, whereas we concentrate more on the 'right' to die and to kill.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

I think you want communism, most working Americans aren't interested in what you're selling

No one likes taxes, but there is more support for progressive taxation among Americans than any other form.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

But in Japan, health care is a right - while it's not a right in America. And in Japan, their kids are free from having to go through lockdown drills because of the threat of people with guns that may be coming to kill them.

So...it all depends on what you call 'freedom'. I guess they concentrate more on the right to stay alive, whereas we concentrate more on the 'right' to die and to kill.

you don't understand rights

if someone else has to pay for it it is not a right Its a handout.

we never engaged in anything like the "rape of Nanking" or Pearl Harbor. We get the fact that you would rather be safe-like a sheep in the pen than roaming free. but while wolves kill a few sheep, the farmer kills all he wants

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

No one likes taxes, but there is more support for progressive taxation among Americans than any other form.

of course-because progressive taxes means most people don't pay for what they use.

appealing to the majority on a topic that screws a minority really isn't much of a valid argument

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

I wasn't lying - I was wrong. Do you understand the difference? Someone who believes something that is incorrect is NOT lying when they say that thing. They are lying ONLY if they KNOW they are saying something that is incorrect. So please get your definitions straight.

I thought I had read somewhere that they had voted for Obama at a higher rate than the blacks - which is obviously wrong. Thank you - sincerely - for pointing that out.

That said, they - the most successful, most highly-educated ethnic group (including compared to whites) - still overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The gist of my point still stands...that the conservative claim that those who voted Democratic just want handouts is flat wrong and is easily disproven.

studies note that Asians tend to be far more accepting of big government and far less supportive of individual rights which explains why they like Obama-he wants more big government and less individual rights

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

of course-because progressive taxes means most people don't pay for what they use.

appealing to the majority on a topic that screws a minority really isn't much of a valid argument

I would be surprised if even a majority of those earning more than 100k a year were against progressive taxation. Personally, I don't mind paying a higher tax rate on the upper brackets of my income than a single mother does. I would suspect that most people feel the same way regardless of how much they earn.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

I would be surprised if even a majority of those earning more than 100k a year were against progressive taxation. Personally, I don't mind paying a higher tax rate on the upper brackets of my income than a single mother does. I would suspect that most people feel the same way regardless of how much they earn.

do you mind knowing that there is nothing to stop the majority from voting your rates up higher and higher and higher

I think if you pay more actual tax dollars you should not pay at a higher rate

a flat tax prevents the incredible extra constitutional power congress gets with a progressive income tax

Lots of rich liberals like high taxes-its the price they are willing to pay to get other things they want supported by the envious classes.

Many Über wealthy like high tax rates-it kills off the ability of hard working-high salaried thrifty individuals from competing with them

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

do you mind knowing that there is nothing to stop the majority from voting your rates up higher and higher and higher

I think if you pay more actual tax dollars you should not pay at a higher rate

a flat tax prevents the incredible extra constitutional power congress gets with a progressive income tax

Lots of rich liberals like high taxes-its the price they are willing to pay to get other things they want supported by the envious classes.

Many Über wealthy like high tax rates-it kills off the ability of hard working-high salaried thrifty individuals from competing with them

Federal tax rates are lower than they have been in decades. With me its a question of pragmatism. We have placed certain responsibilities in the public sector. Those services require funding. The burden of funding them is far lower for me than it proportionally is for someone earning less than the median income. Thus I don't mind paying a higher rate. If all of a sudden tax rates started going way up, I might change my mind, but right now thats not an issue.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Federal tax rates are lower than they have been in decades. With me its a question of pragmatism. We have placed certain responsibilities in the public sector. Those services require funding. The burden of funding them is far lower for me than it proportionally is for someone earning less than the median income. Thus I don't mind paying a higher rate. If all of a sudden tax rates started going way up, I might change my mind, but right now thats not an issue.

you are confusing marginal rates with effective rates

and I do mind. I pay far too much for what I get in return and far too many people do not get the proper feedback as to how much government costs. So they demand more and more government since they don't get properly taxed for what they want

 

[DA60]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Progressive taxation is about two things.

1) most people aren't rich, but they want to be but cannot figure out how to get rich. So they resent/envy those that are and they want to try and make the rich poorer.

2) most Americans receive government monies and they are scared that if the rich don't pay more, their government payouts will diminish/end.

Imo, this isn't primarily about ideology; it's primarily about envy and fear.


Oh, and those that point to a few mega-rich people that say they believe in progressive taxation?

Ask them if they believe in it for capital gains as well? I guarantee you most will say 'no' because the VAST majority of the truly rich make their money in capital gains, not income.

 

[Tigger]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Yeah, who needs votes when you have guns, right? Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that scenario.....

Nothing. Either we win the fight and fix America permanently or we are dead and don't have to deal with the Liberal wastes of flesh and oxygen ever again. It's a Win - Win situation.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Progressive taxation is about two things.

1) most people aren't rich, but they want to be but cannot figure out how to get rich. So they resent/envy those that are and they want to try and make the rich poorer.

2) most Americans receive government monies and they are scared that if the rich don't pay more, their government payouts will diminish/end.

Imo, this isn't primarily about ideology; it's primarily about envy and fear.


Oh, and those that point to a few mega-rich people that say they believe in progressive taxation?

Ask them if they believe in it for capital gains as well? I guarantee you most will say 'no' because the VAST majority of the truly rich make their money in capital gains, not income.

Warren Buffett, the second richest person in the country believes capital gains should be higher. Next.

While DA60 tried to malign those arguing for progressive taxation by reducing the debate to the silly notions that the poor and middle class are jealous, envious and resent the rich, the true debate has nothing to do with that. The real debate is about funding the expenses of the government in the fairest way to spread the burden of taxation. One would think there should be no debate at all. The rich have gained unprecedented new wealth over the last 30 years, while receiving tax-cuts. At the same time, the not-rich have been income stagnant and have endured many cuts to programs that they use. Surely the rich could take on this burden without any measure of discomfort. Studies have shown that the rich aren't taxed enough to have them "go Galt" and refuse to work or invest. Thus, taxing the rich more has no negative effects upon the economy, raises federal revenue; all without turning rich people into paupers.

The debate then crumbles into a moral debate "why is it fair to tax rich people at a higher rate than everyone else." Actually, we don't. A rich person is taxed at the same rate up to $250,000 as everyone else. Everyone else is taxed beyond $250,000 the same as rich people. The problem is that most never make $250,000 in a single year, so it doesn't apply to them. In any case, considering the limited moral issues we are able to focus on at one time, worrying about the morality of rich people keeping more of their money isn't high on my priority list.

Taxing the Rich
First, over the past three decades we’ve seen a soaring share of income going to the very top of the income distribution (right scale) even as tax rates on high incomes have fallen sharply, with the recent Obama increases clawing back only a fraction of the previous cuts:

Second, there is now a lot of hard empirical work on the incentive effects of high top tax rates. None of it shows the kind of huge negative effects that figure so prominently in right-wing rhetoric. In particular, none of it suggests that we are anywhere close to the point where raising taxes on the rich would reduce revenue as opposed to increasing it.

Finally, you can use the results of these studies to estimate the “optimal” tax rate on top incomes; I think the best way to think about what optimality means is, what’s best for the 99 percent, since the 1 percent will be doing fine regardless. And just about everything points to substantially higher tax rates than we now have.

This has nothing to do with envy, or a desire to punish the rich, or anything other than a recognition of tradeoffs: if we choose to raise less revenue from the rich than we can without hurting the economy, we will be forced either to raise more taxes from or provide fewer valuable services to everyone else.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nothing. Either we win the fight and fix America permanently or we are dead and don't have to deal with the Liberal wastes of flesh and oxygen ever again. It's a Win - Win situation.

Wow, just wow! When "fight and fix America" means the mundane task of keeping capital gains rates at 15% and stopping ordinary income from rising 3%, and your willing to fight and die for that paltry ambition, as it your were fighting for liberty itself, you guys have crossed the line and belong in mental institutions.

People fought and died to make this nation a democracy, where issues like taxation and spending would be determined by elections. You and your kind only seem to believe in elections when your side wins and then turns its back on the principles the nation was fought. So, when you don't get your way at the ballot box, you threaten to grasp your guns. You people are not patriots at all. You are anarchists and hypocrites.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

How about updating that particular graph, hm?

View attachment 67159913

What's more, guy, you need to think about how they do this poll. Gallup - which did both polls - is notorious for ONLY calling those who have land-lines...and many, perhaps most of today's young people only have cell phones, and so wouldn't be part of the sample...

...which is why Gallup's polls skewed consistently to the right in the polls leading up to the 2012 election.

America's changing...and there's nothing (short of a military coup) that conservatives can do to stop it.

You can keep telling yourself, but I think you are only going to be disappointed.

This from The New Republic, a very leftist publication.

Liberalism has spent the better part of the past century attempting to prove that it could competently and responsibly extend the state into new reaches of American life. With the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the administration has badly injured that cause, confirming the worst slurs against the federal government. It has stifled bad news and fudged promises; it has failed to translate complex mechanisms of policy into plain English; it can’t even launch a damn website. What’s more, nobody responsible for the debacle has lost a job or suffered a demotion. Over time, the Affordable Care Act’s technical difficulties can be repaired. Reversing the initial impressions of government ineptitude won’t be so easy.
. . . .
The onus, in other words, was on liberals to prove the concept of government. And while their ideas for what the state could accomplish were often quite vague, they made confident claims about their capacity to implement them. Back when Woodrow Wilson was a professor at Bryn Mawr, he published a seminal essay extolling “the science of administration.” His case was characteristic of the times and the ideology he helped shape. Wilson imagined technical experts, the new breed of social scientists emerging from the universities, who could help steer the economy. He would come to see these experts as a bulwark against the predations of corporations and protectors of the “man on the make.” Government efficiency became something of a slogan for the movement. When Teddy Roosevelt thumped his fists before the Progressive Party convention in 1912—the moment he pandered hardest to the nascent liberalism—he invoked efficiency 22 times, rallying the throngs of reformers behind what he called the “cause of human rights and of government efficiency.”

Obamacare Failure is a Threat to Liberalism | New Republic

Speaking about the Obamacare roll out, Democrat Strategist Kirstin Powers stated:

“Barack Obama has given you this and this is the problem. He has set back the cause of activist government, the idea that the government can do anything for probably decades. He has given you this.”
​

Kirsten Powers: Obama 'Had a Total Lack of Curiosity' About ObamaCare Tech Problems

Liberalism, liberal / progressive policies are failing, and will likely take the whole idea of liberal activist government down with them. We can only hope so. I've not seen anything from this 'activist government', or any activist government, that has been any good, that has been well thought out, that was done on sound principals. Typically it costs everyone money they don't have and delivers less than what they got when under the private sector.

 

[Tigger]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Wow, just wow! When "fight and fix America" means the mundane task of keeping capital gains rates at 15% and stopping ordinary income from rising 3%, and your willing to fight and die for that paltry ambition, as it your were fighting for liberty itself, you guys have crossed the line and belong in mental institutions.

No it means getting rid of Capital Gains and Death Taxes entirely, along with the Progressive Tax system and ALL deductions. It means allowing an individual's income to be based on what their real value is to their employer. It means getting the Government's hand out of places it doesn't belong even if it requires cutting their hand off to do it. The current Government has no legitimacy and hasn't in a century and a half.

People fought and died to make this nation a democracy, where issues like taxation and spending would be determined by elections. You and your kind only seem to believe in elections when your side wins and then turns its back on the principles the nation was fought. So, when you don't get your way at the ballot box, you threaten to grasp your guns. You people are not patriots at all. You are anarchists and hypocrites.

MANY of those dead people are related to me. Unlimited Freedom was never the intent of this nation's founders. Real the Constitution for proof of that. There hasn't been a legitimate national election in 150 years because there hasn't been a legitimate federal government in that period of time. We are not Anarchists. We simply understand thus government is neither legitimate nor decent.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

How is it that liberals are some of the richest people in the country? They could reduce the income gap by simply getting paid less, or paying all of their employees more, but why don't they?

 

[DA60]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Warren Buffett, the second richest person in the country believes capital gains should be higher. Next.

While DA60 tried to malign those arguing for progressive taxation by reducing the debate to the silly notions that the poor and middle class are jealous, envious and resent the rich, the true debate has nothing to do with that. The real debate is about funding the expenses of the government in the fairest way to spread the burden of taxation. One would think there should be no debate at all. The rich have gained unprecedented new wealth over the last 30 years, while receiving tax-cuts. At the same time, the not-rich have been income stagnant and have endured many cuts to programs that they use. Surely the rich could take on this burden without any measure of discomfort. Studies have shown that the rich aren't taxed enough to have them "go Galt" and refuse to work or invest. Thus, taxing the rich more has no negative effects upon the economy, raises federal revenue; all without turning rich people into paupers.

The debate then crumbles into a moral debate "why is it fair to tax rich people at a higher rate than everyone else." Actually, we don't. A rich person is taxed at the same rate up to $250,000 as everyone else. Everyone else is taxed beyond $250,000 the same as rich people. The problem is that most never make $250,000 in a single year, so it doesn't apply to them. In any case, considering the limited moral issues we are able to focus on at one time, worrying about the morality of rich people keeping more of their money isn't high on my priority list.

1) One guy and that is your proof? Ahhh...no. That is evidence, not proof.

First, I said 'most' of the truly rich will be against a capital gains tax rise...not all. Actually, I was thinking of Buffett when I said that. He is DEFINITELY the exception. He is a known Democrat supporter and he is 83 and recently had cancer.
My point is that he has long supported big government - most mega rich do not (again, I said 'most'). Plus he must realize he will probably die long before his ideas are implemented, so his wealth is under little threat. And if he is such a believer in higher taxes, what is stopping him from donating more of his money to the IRS every year? If he thinks it's his duty or the right thing to do then to not do so is the wrong thing to do...hypocrisy ('such-and-such is the right thing to do...but I will not do it until I am forced to')

And I believe his principle argument was that a moderate rise in capital gains taxes would not destroy investment - and I agree with him, btw.

I am for a flat tax for all Americans - with the same rate for both income and capital gains and no deductions except for charitable contributions.


And 2) I stated that the primary reason Americans want progressive taxation is envy and fear...please prove I am wrong using unbiased, factual sources.
Are you saying that millions of poor Americans do not envy and even resent the rich? And are you also saying that many other millions are not proposing this out of fear of their big government handouts coming to an end without greater taxation on the rich?
The fact that most middle/poor class Americans (IMO) are for progressive taxation and most rich ones (to my knowledge) are against it adds proof to my theory.


And 3) finally progressive taxation is NOT 'fair'.

'Fair adjective \ˈfer\
: agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable

: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

: not too harsh or critical'

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair


By definition, taxing one group more then another group is NOT fair as it favours some over others.

The ONLY truly 'fair' taxation is one where every single tax paying American pays exactly the same percentage of their income (both income and capital gains)...no matter how much they make.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Could you elaborate on this?

"any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person."

Easy. Any rich person depends upon America's education system to educate his employees, depends upon American taxpayers to pay for the road and sidewalk maintenance to ensure he can stock his store, and his customers can arrive. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded military to protect the flow of products (including oil) to and from overseas. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded law enforcement and fire protection to protect not only his home(s) but also his business(es). Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded regulatory agencies to protect him from large-scale fraud by banks and insurance agencies.

I can go on like this all day long...but you do get my point.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

There are a lot of what ifs and assumptions being made in this argument. It really isn't that difficult to find a job. It may be difficult to find a job that you want, that you've studied for, or qualified for, or pays what you're expecting, or doing what you want to do. If you've exhausted all local opportunities, you may have to take a job in a different town or city. Maybe learn a new skill. Having a job is critical, and they are out there though a lot of people don't want to go outside their comfort zone to find them.

That's the constant conservative assumption - "it's easy to find a job - the unemployed are just lazy." But here's reality:

McDonalds Hires 62,000, Turns Away Over 938,000 Applicants For Minimum Wage, Part-Time Jobs
McDonald’s and its franchisees hired 62,000 people in the U.S. after receiving more than one million applications, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said today in an e-mailed statement. Previously, it said it planned to hire 50,000.
The April 19 national hiring day was the company’s first, said Danya Proud, a McDonald’s spokeswoman. She declined to disclose how many of the jobs were full- versus part-time. McDonald’s employed 400,000 workers worldwide at company-owned stores at the end of 2010, according to a company filing.
Earlier this month, McDonald’s said sales at stores open at least 13 months climbed 2.9 percent in the U.S. after it attracted more diners with items such as beverages and the Chipotle BBQ Bacon Angus burger. The fast-food chain has about 14,000 stores in the U.S. and more than 18,000 abroad. About 80 percent of all McDonald’s stores are franchised.

In other words, y'all REALLY need to get off this "if they're unemployed, it's THEIR fault" schtick. Think about it, guy - when millions were laid off following the Great Recession, were there jobs available for them to immediately take? Of course not. And if you'll think about it, how did we finally recover from the Great Depression?

GOVERNMENT-FUNDED WORK. It was in the form of preparation for WWII, but it was STILL government-funded work...and government-funded work is PRECISELY what today's Right is most strongly against.

This, however, is a discussion about progressive taxes. You haven't mentioned anything about that. You're simply reaching pretty far to try to convince people that we need to pay regardless, which I'm not convinced of. You apparently believe society falls apart without 2+ year unemployment benefits and food stamps. You also forget to mention that a lot of people that lose their jobs and end up on the street obviously haven't taken the personal responsibility of saving money, living below their means, and having children they can afford. Sometimes life teaches people hard lessons, lessons that they need to learn rather than be babied through life.

Actually, the one who "mentioned something about that" was Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism" whom I quoted in the OP.

Look, guy, if you really want a life lesson, I strongly recommend that you live in a third-world nation for a while. In such places, there's no "social safety net" - the people learn those "hard lessons" all the time...and life gets no better for them as a whole.

Ask yourself why it is that are NO - zero, zip, nada - nations that provide social safety nets that are part of the first-world community. If life worked as you seem to believe, all those oh-so-socialistic nanny states would be on the bottom of the economic heap, and the Randian paradises of "he who doesn't work, won't eat" would be on top. But in REALITY, it's just the opposite.

I can well understand why you think the way you do - I used to think as you do, too. But I came to understand that that way of thinking simply doesn't explain how the nations of today are the way they are.