Taxation, and your views on what people should pay.
366 replies, posted
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123601]Because the only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to, by some method, take it from someone else.
To borrow a tired expression, it doesn't grow on trees, bro.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Entirely fucking wrong.
The only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to be DONATED THAT MONEY WILLINGLY BY THE PEOPLE DEMANDING THEIR PRODUCT.
God do you people not understand simple things like supply and demand? The capitalist system as a whole?
EDIT:
Fun fact, it [i]is[/i] the only way government can get money though, taking it by force i mean. Maybe you are demonizing the wrong people.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123594]
You are [i]studied[/i] and you did proclaim privateers are the devil, after all.[/QUOTE]
Oh damn, you're right, I did proclaim that
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123594]
Privateers are the devil![/quote]
:colbert:
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;25122427]How do you think they got rich in the first place?
Inheritance? Don't make me laugh about that. There is a thing called estate tax, which is currently at 55%.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the poor people.
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123587]If "we" are the upper-class, then I'd have to agree with you. There are more lower- and middle-class voters than upper-class voters, and this will always be the case. Thus, they tend to enact policies that benefit lower and middle-class voters, which to upper-class voters like us, tends to seem unfair.[/QUOTE]
A perfect society cannot have such insane differences between classes. The lines have to be very slim, if nonexistent. That is, in a society that's there for the benefit of the citizens, not the tiny percentage of rich citizens.
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123546]Whoa whoa whoa whoa
What the fuck is this?![/QUOTE]
Sorry if it seemed anti-semetic. I was just saying the Jewish peoples had made the case very well known. Infact, its a widely acknowledged event in mankind that is frowned upon.
Wait...
WTF does this have to do with taxes?
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123601]Because the only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to, by some method, take it from someone else.
To borrow a tired expression, it doesn't grow on trees, bro.[/QUOTE]
The only way to get money is to take it from somebody else.
People don't mint their own money after they get home from work.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123617]Wrong. Entirely fucking wrong.
The only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to be DONATED THAT MONEY WILLINGLY BY THE PEOPLE DEMANDING THEIR PRODUCT.
God do you people not understand simple things like supply and demand? The capitalist system as a whole?[/QUOTE]
Or inheritance. We call these people "famous for being famous" -- such as Paris Hilton, ergo they give jack shit to society.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;25123565]
How the fuck is someone having money being a burden to those who don't? Envy?[/QUOTE]
How is taking the same percentage of money from a person who has very little to spare versus a person who has a lot to spare being fair? Greed? Because it's their money, and they would rather have others pay for the things that affect their lives daily?
This isn't even going into the economic benefits of having graduated tax rate; the middle and lower class are the largest spenders in the economy and taking more away from their available excess money is a detriment to the economy that keeps those rich people rich.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123617]Wrong. Entirely fucking wrong.
The only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to be DONATED THAT MONEY WILLINGLY BY THE PEOPLE DEMANDING THEIR PRODUCT.
God do you people not understand simple things like supply and demand? The capitalist system as a whole?[/QUOTE]
When their product is [i]necessary[/i], this isn't the case at all.
housing, food, healthcare, transportation, education- if these were all provided affordably to every single American, then there wouldn't be any need to bother with class distinctions or distribution of wealth or anything.
The fact of the matter is that there are homeless, sick, hungry, and/or uneducated people in our country, and the betterment of the station of those people is the reason our government is exists.*
*No, it's NOT the reason it was originally founded, but in a broader sense, the purpose of a government is the welfare of its constituents the people, so by my interpretation, the job of a government is not fulfilled until such basic necessities are provided for all.
[editline]11:59PM[/editline]
ANYWAYS IT IS 12:00 AM AND I PLAN ON PASSING MY MACROECONOMICS TEST TOMORROW MORNING SO I NOW WILL GO TO SLEEP
caps
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123680]When their product is [i]necessary[/i], this isn't the case at all.
housing, food, healthcare, transportation, education- if these were all provided affordably to every single American, then there wouldn't be any need to bother with class distinctions or distribution of wealth or anything.
The fact of the matter is that there are homeless, sick, hungry, and/or uneducated people in our country, and the betterment of the station of those people is the reason our government is exists.*
*No, it's NOT the reason it was originally founded, but in a broader sense, the purpose of a government is the welfare of its constituents the people, so by my interpretation, the job of a government is not fulfilled until such basic necessities are provided for all.[/QUOTE]
That is only assuming those things are necessary. In our day and age they are given the broad term "necessary" because people think they are, but they aren't.
They are privileges of living in a well-to-do society.
You go and tell people in Cambodia that those things are necessary, go ahead.
Sure food and water is, but all of those other things are luxuries compared to the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;25121877] If everyone is getting the same amount of money after taxes despite occupation, sounds like communism.[/QUOTE]
well uh
uh
i'm sorry you lost me, what
[editline]09:04PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25123535]
Plus, the jews aren't generally "quiet" people and will make a fuss.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck is this shit
you gonna see just how not quiet i am biatch
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123721]That is only assuming those things are necessary. In our day and age they are given the broad term "necessary" because people think they are, but they aren't.
They are privileges of living in a well-to-do society.
You go and tell people in Cambodia that those things are necessary, go ahead.
Sure food and water is, but all of those other things are luxuries compared to the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
Don't make the comparison of family vs family against country vs country, it doesn't work. Standard of living between families =/= Standard of living between countries.
If the income rates leveled out in the western world, most people would have more than enough money to live pretty comfortably. If it leveled out world wide (somehow) everybody would be living in equal squalor.
Someone told me that taxation is appropriate if you're trying to get up from a recession of a business cycle, how did that work again?
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123721]That is only assuming those things are necessary. In our day and age they are given the broad term "necessary" because people think they are, but they aren't.
They are privileges of living in a well-to-do society.
You go and tell people in Cambodia that those things are necessary, go ahead.
Sure food and water is, but all of those other things are luxuries compared to the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
they are necessary in our society.
anyway let me simply say that the rich benefit more from society then the poor and therefore deserve to pay more tax. they will still be rich, i mean for fucks sake, but this will improve the quality of life drastically for the poor and middle class by providing universal health care, better schooling, etc etc. thereby improving the quality of life for the rich because they live in an overall better society. as some rich people like to leave their private estates occasionally and not get jumped. just saying.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25123790]Don't make the comparison of family vs family against country vs country, it doesn't work. Standard of living between families =/= Standard of living between countries.
If the income rates leveled out in the western world, most people would have more than enough money to live pretty comfortably. If it leveled out world wide (somehow) everybody would be living in equal squalor.[/QUOTE]
If you mean everyone would be living in sub-par conditions you are correct.
If you think the money of the minority of rich people would make everyone live say, a middle-class lifestyle, you are wrong and history tells the tale better then i ever could.
Google: Communism.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123827]If you mean everyone would be living in sub-par conditions you are correct.
If you think the money of the minority of rich people would make everyone live say, a middle-class lifestyle, you are wrong and history tells the tale better then i ever could.
Google: Communism.[/QUOTE]
communism has never existed. the goal of every "communist" country was that they were working toward true communism.
[editline]12:09AM[/editline]
the closest thing to true communism is probably a country like sweden.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123827]If you mean everyone would be living in sub-par conditions you are correct.
If you think the money of the minority of rich people would make everyone live say, a middle-class lifestyle, you are wrong and history tells the tale better then i ever could.
Google: Communism.[/QUOTE]
what does this have to do with communism
[editline]09:10PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;25123842]
the closest thing to true communism is probably a country like sweden.[/QUOTE]
except sweden is hyper-capitalist beyond the point of even america
This isn't "communism." (quote-unquote) This is taxing the rich so the middle class and lower class can receive better benefits. True equality is not a possibility, but making things more equal than they are [B]is [/B]possible[B].[/B]
[QUOTE=thisispain;25123847]what does this have to do with communism
[editline]09:10PM[/editline]
except sweden is hyper-capitalist beyond the point of even america[/QUOTE]
but sweden has a good safety net in its society and universal health care.
[editline]12:11AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25123860]This isn't "communism." (quote-unquote) This is taxing the rich so the middle class and lower class can receive better benefits. True equality is not a possibility, but making things more equal than they are [B]is.[/B][/QUOTE]
yeah true equality will exist when we hit a technological singularity.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;25123860]This isn't "communism." (quote-unquote) This is taxing the rich so the middle class and lower class can receive better benefits. True equality is not a possibility, but making things more equal than they are [B]is [/B]possible[B].[/B][/QUOTE]
That is exactly what communism set out to do, taxing the rich into equality will only end up as overinflated government, poor people still living bad lifestyles while the rich are dragged down with them.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;25123866]
yeah true equality will exist when we hit a technological singularity.[/QUOTE]
More likely then not, it will ironically come from the minds of rich capitalists. Oh and also robots will be legal slaves... woohoo?....
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123904]That is exactly what communism set out to do, taxing the rich into equality will only end up as overinflated government, poor people still living bad lifestyles while the rich are dragged down with them.[/QUOTE]
Communism eliminates wealth and class hierarchies..it doesn't focus on taxes.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25122593]How about legalize weed and don't tax it?
Do you understand how much funding the government gets every day? Do you have any real concept of that? Seriously.
Do you know how much debt other countries buy from us, despite we have MASSIVE amounts of dollars flowing to the government every day?
The government is wildly irresponsible with money, they make things you and i will never use in our entire lives. They meddle in other peoples affairs and start wars, they legislate your morality. Thus is the problem weed legalization, they caused the problem in the first place and now you want to [b]thank them for destroying your rights by paying them handsomely for it?[/b]
Left wingers make me fucking sick to my stomach.[/QUOTE]
Why not tax it if it's legalize? That's what the situation is with cigarettes.
I agree that perhaps the spending could be revised, but you're treating it like the US blows all of the money.
Which is not the case.
There are several governmental programs and the government is involved with a lot of issues, including helping stabilize the economy.
Like the situation with the housing market, they are getting mixed in to help the big time companies not fall out, because they are essential.
I don't think it's me, but I'm pretty confused on what direction your post is going.
You sound like you're rambling, we're involved with only one real war, which branches out through middle eastern countries, and that's it.
We are mobilized in other countries but that's for precaution.
Meddling in other affairs? That's necessary, in order to remain top status in the world, you have to be apart of the affairs. Or you could be like a country who is only involved in internal affairs.
I think perhaps the government should be more involved with internal affairs, but then people would bitch about something else.
When you're a "right-winger", you think everyone is after you, screwing you over. When you're a "left-winger", you're always concerned whether others are being screwed over.
I for one, support higher taxes for the rich, and by the way the rich in this case, are those who are the top 3% of the United States when it comes to ranking over yearly income. They would hardly be affected, and as mentioned, 2/3 of the super rich are for it.
A bit of their yearly income is dramatic help.
I support government programs, and I'm for the government getting involved with it's country and creating programs.
I'm concerned with how the spending is dispersed, but then again this isn't a dictatorship or oligarchy, how government spending is dispersed is the job of several professionals and economists.
The income of the individuals of the legislative branch, is covered and set in stone through I think it's the first 3 articles of the Constitution.
"A liberal is so broad-minded, that he probably won't even stand up for himself in a debate".
tax the rich more
world will be better place
[QUOTE=s0beit;25122748]You are extremely retarded and thanks for showing it.[/QUOTE]
:banjo:
Great debating bro!
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]Why not tax it if it's legalize? That's what the situation is with cigarettes.
I agree that perhaps the spending could be revised, but you're treating it like the US blows all of the money.
Which is not the case.
[/quote]
Wrong. Citation needed, you made the proclamation i didn't.
Show me how the United States government is a beacon of fiscal responsibility.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
There are several governmental programs and the government is involved with a lot of issues, including helping stabilize the economy.
Like the situation with the housing market, they are getting mixed in to help the big time companies not fall out, because they are essential.
I don't think it's me, but I'm pretty confused on what direction your post is going.[/quote]
Those companies actually should have went under, if big companies who make mistakes to the point of failure don't learn their lesson they will only fail harder in the future and other companies with them.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
You sound like you're rambling, we're involved with only one real war, which branches out through middle eastern countries, and that's it.
We are mobilized in other countries but that's for precaution.
Meddling in other affairs? That's necessary, in order to remain top status in the world, you have to be apart of the affairs. Or you could be like a country who is only involved in internal affairs.
[/quote]
Meddling in other countries affairs is not only not necessary, but it caused this war and terrorism in the first place.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
I think perhaps the government should be more involved with internal affairs, but then people would bitch about something else.
When you're a "right-winger", you think everyone is after you, screwing you over. When you're a "left-winger", you're always concerned whether others are being screwed over.
[/QUOTE]
I [i]am[/i] everyone. Everyone is me, everyone who lives under the broad umbrella of the United States government will gain as i gain from being critical of our government.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
I for one, support higher taxes for the rich, and by the way the rich in this case, are those who are the top 3% of the United States when it comes to ranking over yearly income. They would hardly be affected, and as mentioned, 2/3 of the super rich are for it.
A bit of their yearly income is dramatic help.
I support government programs, and I'm for the government getting involved with it's country and creating programs.
[/QUOTE]
You support higher taxes for the rich, I'm shocked! :ohdear: *monocle falls off*
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
I'm concerned with how the spending is dispersed, but then again this isn't a dictatorship or oligarchy, how government spending is dispersed is the job of several professionals and economists.
The income of the individuals of the legislative branch, is covered and set in stone through I think it's the first 3 articles of the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
There are several types of professionals and several schools of thought in relation to economists. Keynesian, Austrian, take your pick.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;25123934]
"A liberal is so broad-minded, that he probably won't even stand up for himself in a debate".[/QUOTE]
Ok?
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123904]
More likely then not, it will ironically come from the minds of rich capitalists. Oh and also robots will be legal slaves... woohoo?....[/QUOTE]
In ideal circumstances a government could use tax dollars to put exceptional funding into technologies that benefit mankind. Right now the most technology is being pumped out of companies trying to make a profit off of individualistic motivations, not creating things that may benefit us in the longrun.
have enough people called the OP an idiot for suggesting flat rate tax or do i need to get involved in here
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;25124132]have enough people called the OP an idiot for suggesting flat rate tax or do i need to get involved in here[/QUOTE]
wouldn't hurt man
conservatives have the most twisted fucking view of the economic stance of the united states, seriously
i was talking to a righteously conservative kid who was bitching (At the same time) that the federal government wasn't going to give him enough money to go to school at UConn (35k / year for out of state) and also that taxes are too high
i was just like jesus FUCK are you retarded beyond belief
op reminds me of this kid
ps i'd be totally in favor of a flat rate tax if it was 55% because at that high of a tax rate the poor would get so many benefits it'd even out
the rich would leave though lmao
If I was a fascist, I would make everyone pay the same amount of money, not a percentage. I would hear a lot of bitching about this, however. You need money to fund fire departments, schools, military, elderly, prisons, hospitals, and money for people born with a disability. However, I am opposed to giving hard-earned money to lazy drunks who have never even attempted to gain wealth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.