Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy

[corplinx]

Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy


I have to admit that when I hear this phrase I get jostled as much as when I hear some person say the earth is 6000 years old. This sort of blatant deceit is the reason this athiest usually votes for GOP candidates (yeah, they lie too sometimes).

[corplinx]

Yeah, i mispelled "live" in option 3. Maybe some mod can fix that.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx
Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy

I have to admit that when I hear this phrase I get jostled as much as when I hear some person say the earth is 6000 years old. This sort of blatant deceit is the reason this athiest usually votes for GOP candidates (yeah, they lie too sometimes).

I may be tired and confused, but how doesn't the latest tax cut benefit the wealthy more?

Our media is a sad thing. Public discourse on commercial media is essentially dead. Still, it's the Democratic Party's fault for letting "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" be the soundbite that got through.

[DavidJames]

The value of the cuts clearly increase as wealth increases by any measure. You may not like the sound of it, but it's reality, deal with it.

This is different than arguing that since the wealthy pay more they should get more cuts, an argument you are not making here.

Oh, and your poll choices would make JK proud, so I didn't vote. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I may be tired and confused, but how doesn't the latest tax cut benefit the wealthy more?

Our media is a sad thing. Public discourse on commercial media is essentially dead. Still, it's the Democratic Party's fault for letting "Tax Cuts for the wealthy" be the soundbite that got through.
"Tax cut for the wealthy" is a red herring in that a high-income person will get more tax relief in any across-the-board tax cut simply because they pay more taxes to begin with.
I hear many Dems complaining that the tax cut does not give any tax relief to the lowest income people, but how can you offer tax relief to someone who pays no taxes?
I'm not in favor of this tax cut, but only because it doesn't address what I see the real tax issue, which is the ridiculously complex tens-of-thousands of pages long tax code that serves nobody well except tax accountants.

[corplinx]

I see some people drink the koolaid. If you have a 5 percent across the board cut, it benefits everyone equally. Everyone gets 5 percent back. However, the rhetoric kings look at the raw dollar amount and say, "this guy got 10 dollars, this guy got 100, thats not fair." Of course, fairness is subjective and flawd term. In actuality, both men got 5 percent according to what they paid, so there is no inequity.

Using raw figures versus adjusted is a an age-old woo woo trick.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx
Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy


I have to admit that when I hear this phrase I get jostled as much as when I hear some person say the earth is 6000 years old. This sort of blatant deceit is the reason this athiest usually votes for GOP candidates (yeah, they lie too sometimes).

So what are you saying, that this done not costitute a tax cut for the wealthy?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w10.jpg

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/bushplan.html

Bush did a nice trick and made it so that on paper the very poor get the highest cut, but in reality those people are not even paying taxes, they are on assistance if they are making under $12,000 as a married couple, so the figures for that really high spike on the chart are meaningless.

So, what you see is that the cut starts out at the lowset point for the poor tax payers, stays low for the middle class, and then shoots up about $100,000 a year, dips slightly, and then just gest higher and higher after that.

It IS a tax cut for the rich, its a fact.

Let's look at single filers with no kids, like me.

Between $25,000 a year and $70,000 a year the cut is less then a 10% tax savings.

For those making $2,000,000 a year the cut is a 16% tax savings.

Please prove to me that this is not a tax cut for the wealthy.

I personally will save an estimated ~$900 next year from this tax cut.

Someone making $2,000,000 a year will save about $123,000 next year from this cut.

The fact is that it IS a tax cut for the wealthy.

Again for married joint filing:

Those making between $0 and $12,000 get a 5% income tax rate reduction, except the fact that they dont pay taxes at all anyway, they are on assistance most likely.

Those making between $12,000 and $45,200 get no income tax rate reduction at all.

Those making between $45,200 and $109,250 get a 3% income tax rate reduction.

Those making between $109,250 and $166,500 get a 6% tax rate reduction.

Those making between $166,500 and $297,350 get a 3% tax rate reduction.

Those over $$297,350 get a 6.6% tax rate cut, which is also the largest tax cut.

Tell me how this is not a tax cut for the rich?

This is not a flat cut across the board, its not like EVERYONE gets a 5% tax cut, no, the rich get about a 15% tax cut, the middle gets about a 8% tax cut, the poor, get about a 10% tax cut, the very poor show a 33% ax cut on paper, but they aren't paying taxes so that is just for looks.

Why did Bush even create a 10% tax bracket? Its useless, its just for looks to be deceptive those people pay no taxes.

Of course I'm sure that the "liberal media" expailns this all as clearly as I have here, which is of course why are you so "clear" on the facts in the first place.

[crackmonkey]

The tables refer to taxable income, not gross income. Those who make too little money to pay income tax therefore have no taxable income.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The tables refer to taxable income, not gross income. Those who make too little money to pay income tax therefore have no taxable income.

Thats for pointing that out (seriously), but the point remains the same. The big income tax cut for the poor is for those with under $6,000 of taxable income, which amounts to a $300 savings at most.

Money is money, granted, but a 33% tax rate cut on less than $6,000 still does not amount to much. There is no issue with that cut, however it does nothing to change the fact that from $6,000 and up to $65,000 is the lowest part of the tax cut. and the highest part iis for over $2 million.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Thats for pointing that out (seriously), but the point remains the same. The big income tax cut for the poor is for those with under $6,000 of taxable income, which amounts to a $300 savings at most.

Money is money, granted, but a 33% tax rate cut on less than $6,000 still does not amount to much. There is no issue with that cut, however it does nothing to change the fact that from $6,000 and up to $65,000 is the lowest part of the tax cut. and the highest part iis for over $2 million.

Quit your crying.

If either of your liberal candidates had won the election (Gore or Nader), we'd be paying a tax increase.

The fact remains that the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the working class. Why punish them again by not giving them a refund at a higher rate as well?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Quit your crying.

If either of your liberal candidates had won the election (Gore or Nader), we'd be paying a tax increase.

The fact remains that the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the working class. Why punish them again by not giving them a refund at a higher rate as well?

Gore did win the election.

And, why do you think there would be a tax increase? Last I looked Gore was proposing a tax cut for the poor and middle class and leaving the taxes the same on the top bracket.

Its not like taxes have to go up or down together you know. Taxes need to be raised slightly on those making over a million dollars a year and lowered for the rest of us.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Gore did win the election.

You might want to add the company that sold you your alarm clock to your list of worst company's because your still dreaming! Bush won the election and would've won even with the two proposed recounts.

Get over it.

Learn to live with the disappointment.


Originally posted by Malachi151
And, why do you think there would be a tax increase? Last I looked Gore was proposing a tax cut for the poor and middle class and leaving the taxes the same on the top bracket.

Gore tried the same trick that Clinton used -- "Campaign to the right", then "slide back to the left" once you're in office. Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut while he was running for office and later "forgot" all about it once he was in office.

[Dancing David]

I voted three , it seems to be the Planet X option.

Liberal way lefist that I am I support taxing all income at a flat rate like five percent, no deductions , no loopholes, no nothing, everybody pays five percent across the board, including churches and 'not for profits'. Self employeed people would probably loose unedr this system, you pay on income, even if you don't break even.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I voted three , it seems to be the Planet X option.

Liberal way lefist that I am I support taxing all income at a flat rate like five percent, no deductions , no loopholes, no nothing, everybody pays five percent across the board, including churches and 'not for profits'. Self employeed people would probably loose unedr this system, you pay on income, even if you don't break even.

I'm a conservative/libertarian and have no problem with a flat tax...

[Malachi151]

You might want to add the company that sold you your alarm clock to your list of worst company's because your still dreaming! Bush won the election and would've won even with the two proposed recounts.

Get over it.

Learn to live with the disappointment.

What an idiot. First of all, I'm not disappointed, I was never a Gore fan, but he would be better then Bush. Secondly we all knwo that Gore got over half a million ore votes in the popular count, so more Americans wanted Gore. Thirdly we have addressed the election in a different thread. There were a large number of issues asside from the proposed recount in Florida that gave the election away to Bush. I'm suprized people like to see liberty and honesty trampled so easily.

Gore tried the same trick that Clinton used -- "Campaign to the right", then "slide back to the left" once you're in office. Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut while he was running for office and later "forgot" all about it once he was in office.

So? Who said I was a Clinton fan either or liked his policies? Clinton was not liberal enough. I've posted by ideas on taxes here several times, it includes a large tax cut for eveyone making under $500,000 a year and a tax increase on those making more then that with the top tax bracket on income of $4 million a year or more. There's no doubt that everyone would benefit, even the wealthy as more people had money to spend which would make the rich richer even with the rich paying a slightly higher tax rate.

Now for some data:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/recgrow.gif

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/recgdp.gif

Real growth has gone realtively unchanged since the 1950s.

The top marginal rate has come way down from 98% to its low of 28%. Growth is still not as high as it was in the 1960s though with teh top rate of 70%. Tax cutting does pur growth to a point, but when you are all done cutting taxes as low as you can cut them, growth levels off, starts to trop, and then what? You have nowhere to go with tax cuts anymore. Now you need a new trick. Now we have GDP growth declining, and lowering taxes at the same time, in a way that is still supply-side, not really demand side as some analysts have claimed, yet we are awash in supply and demand is not growing. Demand is not really growing beause we don't have a lot of need for new s**t anymore, I mean how much crap are we all supposed to buy, a new car every year while the used car market is flooding? All the old tricks are played out. Bush is trying to follow in the steps of Reagan, but the situation is not the same, the result will be failure and a tanking of the economy as the international market picks up. However, the only people poised to take advantage of the international market are the giant corporations, not local businessmen. So, we willl see those few continue to get rich by supplying demand in other countries, while 95% of Americans sit at home rotting away, prisons keep growing, teachers keep getting poorer and poorer, classrooms keep overfilling, but hey we keep stockpiling weapons to kill people, so that's good.

If I want to make money I can invest in RJ Ryenolds because they own like a thousand companies and because they are still growing strong internationally using marketing techniques there that are illigal here. So, for the coming years if I want to invest and make money, where can I go? The weapons industry, the oil industry, the junk food industry, and cigarettes. Wee, what a lovely world we live in. The largest growth in is the industries that are the worst for us.

The rich are richer in America then they have ever been in the history of the country, they own more property then every before, the average person has less control over thier own life and over government then ever before. Giving the world away to the rich is not going to make the majority more free. All it does is increase private ownership of everything by a very few people who then have control, reducing the freedom of the majority.

Perhaps you don't understand the tradeoffs of freedom.

See, when America was founded, in the name of freedom they said that people should be free to own slaves if they wanted to, afterall why should the "government" be able to tell people what to do? In support of private interprize and private rights, people were allowed to own slaves, because aferall that IS freedom right? The freedom to do what you want, which includes owning people as property if you have the ability to do it.

So, what is freedom? The freedom to take people's jobs away? The freedom to put people out of business, the freedom destroy the environment for profit while it harms us all? How about the freedom to create the Federal Reserve, which intentially keeps people unemployed to keep wages low so that the wealthy can get higher profits? I just love how the free-market has become a religion this country. Its why I'll probably leave, because I think enough people are so clueless about economics here that you will eventually get your wish, which is a more free-market economy, the new Bush tax is virtually a flat tax as it is. And when you unleash the free-market I'll be happy to leave and watch the country go down the tubes and turn into apartide South Africa with a small number of super rich and 90% of the population in economic chains.

[Cain]

The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1 percent — not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4 percent. Paul Krugman, NYT, "Stating the Obvious"

There are plenty of other types of taxes, mostly regressive, besides the Federal income taxes. In fact, most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

Why not just cut taxes for all but the highest marginal tax brackets? Everyone benefits that way.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cain
Paul Krugman, NYT, "Stating the Obvious"

There are plenty of other types of taxes, mostly regressive, besides the Federal income taxes. In fact, most people pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

Why not just cut taxes for all but the highest marginal tax brackets? Everyone benefits that way.

Exactly, at the very least. At the least the top tax bracket should have stayed unchanged. HOw anyone can rationalize that the people in the top tax bracket are somehow negatively affected makes no sense when that bracket has seen the largest growth in history of the country.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w3.gif

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w3.gif

In fact, the highest degree of change has occurred in the top 1%, but the Census Bureau does not readily publish that data so I could not graph it here. An important fact to point out here is that this graph depicts Household Income, not Individual Income. Between 1965 and 2001 the number of multi-worker households has increased dramatically. In fact the slight increase in income that is shown for the 1st through 4th quintiles (a quintile represents 1/5th of the population) is primarily attributed to an increase in the number of households with two or more workers supporting the household. Individual male income for the 1st through 4th quintiles has actually gone down since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation.

In 1965 27% of the full time workforce was female, by 2001 that number had risen to 41%. What has allowed the average American household to continue to maintain a good standard of living is an increase in multi-worker households and a decrease in the number of children that families have.

The issue is that the economic policies of the Reagan administration were designed to primarily benefit wealthy Americans. At the time a lot of smoke and mirrors were used to convince average Americans that these policies would help them as well. A similar set of lies has been used by those, like Steve Forbes, who promote a flat tax system.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w4.gif

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w4.gif

[Ed]

Would someone please define "rich"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Exactly, at the very least. At the least the top tax bracket should have stayed unchanged. HOw anyone can rationalize that the people in the top tax bracket are somehow negatively affected makes no sense when that bracket has seen the largest growth in history of the country.

I guess that whole equal treatment thing means nothing? Mind you, we live far from that perfection. Rich people can afford better lawyers and circumvent justice in some cases. However, jsut because the system isn't always equal doesn't mean we have to be unequal in taxation.

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by corplinx


I guess that whole equal treatment thing means nothing? Mind you, we live far from that perfection. Rich people can afford better lawyers and circumvent justice in some cases. However, jsut because the system isn't always equal doesn't mean we have to be unequal in taxation.

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Which comes from a fundmanetal lack of understanding of capitalism. The leverage of capital is in itself an element of inequality. The more money that one has the easier it is to make more money.

I really don't care anymore. If people want a flat tax, that's fine, the country wil be a third world country within 20 years fo going to a flat tax ssytem. People today have been so poorly educated on econmics, and have been fed so much bulls**t proiganda by the conservatives that they have no idea how economics works. We now have been through over 20 years of propiganda from the right telling people that the wealthiest people in America are somehow being disadvantaged, despite the fact that they keep getting richer exponentially.

Its f**king brain washing.

But, hey, you know what, fine I hope America gets a flat tax one day I really do. I want this country to get it so that all the people who begged for it will get what they deserved. I'll be happy to move away and watch the country crumble under its own stupidity. The country has endured 50 years of propiganda from fascist leaders, who are now in control of our government. If people want to cheer these fascists on then they can have it, keep waving the flags, goign to church, praising God, the President, and the corporations that are robbing you blind. You can keep inventing evil enemies to divert focus and keep blaming the every growing poor popualiton that will surely be produced for the country's problems and just keep giving more advantages to the rich who everyone can worship like royalty. Fine, I'm outta here though, off to whatever country is next to be persecuted by American leaders and bullied into submision for corproate interests.

I mean the problem is already obviously out of control, yet still over the half the contry is cheering the thieves on, talk about blind stupidity.

[Number Six]

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

By the way, as I understand it a flat tax could be made regressive or progressive depending on the rate and the line at which people start paying taxes so why are you talking like it would be bad for poor people? What if, for example, taxes started on the first dollar over 100 K and the tax rate was 40%? (BTW, I don't know if that would generate too much or too little money.) The people in the 100-200 K range would be getting relatively screwed but the people under 100 K (ie, most people) would pay nothing.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I mean the problem is already obviously out of control, yet still over the half the contry is cheering the thieves on, talk about blind stupidity.

During the tech boom, I was paying hideous amounts in taxes. I had no house, no 401k, no dependents, and I was paying an upper rate. The result is, I payed 33k in taxes one year and got pissed off as hell. Don't tell me I'm brainwashed. "Equal protection" means just that fignuts. Its none of the governements business how much you make, how many kids you have, if you own a home, if you have gambing losses, if you put money in a 401k, if you gave money to charity, or if you made/lost money on sales of stock. The government has a mandate to treat me the same as others. It also has a mandate to respect my privacy. The current income tax fails both.

The sad thing is, its yahoos like you who will be talking about how the evil republicans want to invade your privacy.

[Questioninggeller]

Like most Polls, these options are made to get a expected result. Hence most people who read it will not vote.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Ed
Would someone please define "rich"

Hi Ed,

You've never gotten a good answer for this, have you?

Me, personally, I would define "rich" as having one or both of:

1. A sufficiently high income (taxable or otherwise). I would be comfortable with saying everyone in the top 5% of household income.

2. Owning equity of sufficiently high value. This is a lot more fuzzy, I would be comfortable with saying a multimillionaire, but finding some exclusion for farmers and small business owners.

Now, what "wealthy" means, that's a whole other story.... ;)

[Number Six]

I think #2 is more relevant. I don't think income means all that much. I was in school for a long time, making nothing, and I finally finished and suddenly I had a high salary (I don't mean real high, I mean like 70 K, which seems like a lot to someone making 30-40 K) and I noticed that people and the media and the tax code were telling me I was rich. But first of all I had gone through a lot of years living low to get to that stage and secondly not only was I living low during those years but also I wasn't saving anything at all for retirement.

My living standard changed little when I went from grad student to worker because I tried to save a lot so that would be able to retire some day. Net worth seems a lot more important to me than annual income.

[Malachi151]

I had no house

Your own fault, anyone can buy a house and deduct the interest from their income taxes.

no 401k

Your own fault, anyone can open a retirement account, at least an IRA, as a tax shelter.

no dependents

I don't think there should be tax breaks for dependants anyway.

and I was paying an upper rate. The result is, I payed 33k in taxes one year

Did YOU cause the tech boom? Why were you getting paid highly? Well, for one thing due to a deceptive media campaign about the tech industry. For another because fo falsified reporteing my the country's biggest companies causing a stock market bubble. Were you responsible for those things? No, but you get paid because of them didn't you. If there was no American society you would not even have a job. Because people are safge and educated and reasonably happy, and buying computers, etc, you had a job that paid good money. Part of that money has to go back to pay to maintain those things that allow our economy to grow.

Not only that, but under "my" tax plan you would have gotten a tax cut, because you made under $500,000 a year, so you would be paying much less taxes under a "real" progressive system.

Its none of the governements business how much you make, how many kids you have, if you own a home, if you have gambing losses, if you put money in a 401k, if you gave money to charity, or if you made/lost money on sales of stock. The government has a mandate to treat me the same as others. It also has a mandate to respect my privacy.

So you want anarchy then.

The sad thing is, its yahoos like you who will be talking about how the evil republicans want to invade your privacy.

Here ya go:

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm

Stright from the Bush administration, Total Informaiton Awareness. No, the fascist govt will know much more then just those bits of information about you. They will be compliing databses on all your purchases, income, location at all times, what you buy, how much it costs, profiling your personality, etc. Forget privacy, it went out the door 50 years ago, and to be honest the government is not the major one here its private industry that does most of the snooping.

One of the largest growing industries today is the private database and analysis industry where everyone is profiled and tracked for marketing purposes. If you think not then just do your own research. There is no privacy, unless you get paid in cash, have no accounts, buy in cash, and never make big purchases.

Who is defending your privacy? Certianly not private industry, they want no privacy at all. Certianly not the Republicans they want 'Total Information Awareness." Try the Greeen Party, and consumer advocates like Ralph Nader.

[jj]

The fact that dividends get a cut rate, but selling of real property doesn't shows, I think, the clear intent to benefit only the very rich.

Or has the news got this one wrong?

Do tell, "American", do tell me, why are the ways that the lower and middle classes can invest effectively not getting tax relief?

The answer is simple: They're the slaves, they're not supposed to get a tax cut.

The people who you elected count on your own massive anti-intellectual prejudice to keep them going, too.

So, why are you hurting yourself? Do you enjoy it?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You might want to add the company that sold you your alarm clock to your list of worst company's because your still dreaming! Bush won the election and would've won even with the two proposed recounts. I'm not sure I totally accept that. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869928222#post1869928222) ;)

[Cain]

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Okay, let's say we have one person making 100,000 dollars a year and nine people making 10,000. Everyone pays a flat rate of 10% on their income.

$10,000
+$9000
$19,000

Notice that the top 1% pays more than 50% of the taxes. What does that do for equality? Well, who cares, right? At least everyone pays the same percentage to the federal government in taxation.

But what about in the market place? The poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on necessities like food and rent. Or what about car payments.

The whole purpose behind a progressive tax is to make the burden -- the ability to pay -- more equal. If you have an ultra-high income, then you can afford to pay more. This takes some of the load off the poorest people, who can probably afford to give only a very little.

I'm f*cking sick n' tired of hearing how rough the richest one percent have it. In the fifties the highest marginal tax bracket was 91%. (And we should remember that there are brackets. During Clinton's term no one paid 39% on all their income; only 39% after a certain point -- that is, assuming they didn't take advantage of any loopholes in the code, and we know rich people never do).

[Malachi151]

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Being treated equally would mean that a child born in the ghetto has the same economic oppertunities as the son of Bill Gates. Hwo do you plan to make that equal, or do you say that it does not matter?

Secondly, why should everyone be forced into a situation where they are constantly tryign to be rich, or else settling for a lame struggling existance? We need everyone from garbage men to CEOs to make the country work, every job there is is important to making the country work. They don't all pay the same though.

So, we can have equal taxation when we all have equal income, oh wait, that's communism.

Why should someone who decided to be a school teacher face life making $35,000 a year, while a basketball player makes $5 million a year, plus endorcements. The teacher is really more important to society. We can do without basketball players, not without teachers.

What about when a new technology is developed by a scientist who is paid $50,000 a year to work for a company who uses his invention to make millions of dollars, and then many companies take that invention that the scientist came up with and they use it to increase effencieny in their factory, and they are able to fire 5,000 workers, so the CEOs fire 5,000 people and take half thier income as a bonus of $20 million dollars, and they use the other half to increase marketing, etc.

Hmm.. really the scientist is the one responsible for all that, but he didnt' get paid much, why are the CEOs entitled to millions of dollars just bcuase they implement technology advances made by others? And why are the workers penalized, its not their fault that they became obsolete. They woke up the day they got fired just like any other, ready to go to work to make somethng and earn money, but they were no longer needed. They did nothing wrong, they worked hard, they tried hard they did what they were supposed to do.

Dont' think it can happen only to factory workers, computerization is eleminating jobs in the service industry too. I've put people out of work. I write software for doctor's clinics. We increase effencieny, so that doctors can fire people and save money and make more money. In the captalist system we have no choice. I'm against this kind of thing, but due to the ay our system works we all have to do what we can to do be successful. I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.

Most of the people that lose their jobs due to our software are probably lower middle class working mothers trying to pay bills.

So, tell me more about the fairness of this system that we have.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Being treated equally would mean that a child born in the ghetto has the same economic oppertunities as the son of Bill Gates. Hwo do you plan to make that equal, or do you say that it does not matter?

Secondly, why should everyone be forced into a situation where they are constantly tryign to be rich, or else settling for a lame struggling existance? We need everyone from garbage men to CEOs to make the country work, every job there is is important to making the country work. They don't all pay the same though.

So, we can have equal taxation when we all have equal income, oh wait, that's communism.

Why should someone who decided to be a school teacher face life making $35,000 a year, while a basketball player makes $5 million a year, plus endorcements. The teacher is really more important to society. We can do without basketball players, not without teachers.

What about when a new technology is developed by a scientist who is paid $50,000 a year to work for a company who uses his invention to make millions of dollars, and then many companies take that invention that the scientist came up with and they use it to increase effencieny in their factory, and they are able to fire 5,000 workers, so the CEOs fire 5,000 people and take half thier income as a bonus of $20 million dollars, and they use the other half to increase marketing, etc.

Hmm.. really the scientist is the one responsible for all that, but he didnt' get paid much, why are the CEOs entitled to millions of dollars just bcuase they implement technology advances made by others? And why are the workers penalized, its not their fault that they became obsolete. They woke up the day they got fired just like any other, ready to go to work to make somethng and earn money, but they were no longer needed. They did nothing wrong, they worked hard, they tried hard they did what they were supposed to do.

Dont' think it can happen only to factory workers, computerization is eleminating jobs in the service industry too. I've put people out of work. I write software for doctor's clinics. We increase effencieny, so that doctors can fire people and save money and make more money. In the captalist system we have no choice. I'm against this kind of thing, but due to the ay our system works we all have to do what we can to do be successful. I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.

Most of the people that lose their jobs due to our software are probably lower middle class working mothers trying to pay bills.

So, tell me more about the fairness of this system that we have.

Life is not fair, get over it

[Gregor]

Wow. Malachi's posts caused my woo-woo detector to explode.

Malachi - you do know that communism and socialism were proven to be failed experiments, don't you?

So, let me ask the question of you that everyone is wondering . . . How is Elvis, and have you spoken to him lately?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed


Life is not fair, get over it

Exactyl my points, which is why I said that in reply to the comment:

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

[Gregor]

Equal treatment? Sales tax on everything but housing, medical care, utilities, and food.

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

I guess that whole equal treatment thing means nothing? Mind you, we live far from that perfection. Rich people can afford better lawyers and circumvent justice in some cases. However, jsut because the system isn't always equal doesn't mean we have to be unequal in taxation.

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.Very easily. Progressive tax is more economically efficient, it creates more social good than flat or regressive tax. The rich derive benefit from healthy, educated populace -- it takes myopic lack of vision to not understand how even the rich benefit by having progressively taxed welfare state.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ed

Life is not fair, get over itFunny how people yelling 'life's not fair, get over it" decry progressive taxation as being 'unfair" to the rich... :rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Malachi - you do know that communism and socialism were proven to be failed experiments, don't you?Ah, I smell another ignoramus who has no clue about what "socialism" and "communism" are...

[Gregor]

How's this for a counter-point.

The poor are disproportionate users of governments services by an extraordinary margin. Thus, even at our present tax structure they win twice.

[Gregor]

Ah
I smell an ad hominem attack as the sole defense of a failed socioeconomic plan.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I smell an ad hominem attack as the sole defense of a failed socioeconomic plan.Dude, if you think communism is a "failed socioeconomic plan" and a "failed experiment", then you are fscking clueless about what communism is.

Communism has never been tried, dude. And you clearly have no clue about what communism is (based upon which, I can assume with some certainty that you don't know what socialism is either).

if only ignorance was painful...

[Gregor]

Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried. I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.:D Pathetic whining -- dontcha just love it? ignorance tries to pretend to be wounded innocence...

I will give you rational debate when you start by actually presenting rational, factual claims, instead of blatant ignorance.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried.it's simple fact.

I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.that may be true, but it in no way renders true your claim that communism had failed.

keep twisting, honey. Your gyrations are amusing.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Gregor
Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
:D Pathetic whining -- dontcha just love it? ignorance tries to pretend to be wounded innocence...

Spin -- dontcha just love it? Someone substituting ad homs for rational debate tries to pretend someone else calling him on it qualifies as "pathetic whining".

[Gregor]

Oh, everyone has their blind spots. With the religious folk, it's the inerrancy of the Bible. With others, it's politics.

Victor's just overly credulous on his personal, socioeconomic religion - communism.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Victor's just overly credulous on his personal, socioeconomic religion - communism.In case you don't know how to read, moron, I defend capitalism (right here in the adjacent thread, the one about Einstein and socialism). I simply get highly annoyed about ignorant idiots making grandiloquent pronouncements on subjects they know nothing about -- pronouncements like "socialism is totalitarian" or "communism is a failed experiment".

I too think that communism couldn't work with humans being as we are; for that matter, i think socialism, even in its best incarnations, to be impractical as well. However, that doesn't give you licence to spout falsehoods under guise of truth.

if you oppose communism, then the best thing for you to do, is to start by understanding what communism is and isn't. Your knee-jerk reaction to the key word "communism" is as intellectually slovenly as it is appallingly ignorant.

[Gregor]

Might I suggest decaffinated coffee? Methinks someone is overcompensating for personal inadequacies.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Might I suggest decaffinated coffee?I do not consume any psychoactive substances, including caffeine.

Methinks someone is overcompensating for personal inadequacies.Methinks someone is too intellectually dishonest to own up to their error. That someone would be you.

[Charles Livingston]

Boys Boys Boys, do I have to pull this car over. I havent seen so much name calling and bickering since Victor and Shanek debated about Shanek's libertarianism.

Victor,
Man, I always look foward to and read your posts. You have so much to say, and are clearly very well read, about political and economic topics. I think there is no doubt to me that you are a very intelligent person. I also respect how you dont hide behind a screen name. However, you seem to always end up calling the person you are in diaglogue with some form of 'stupid'. It gets old man. Some of these people may well be very intelligent, some may be smarter than you , some may be not as smart as you, and some the same. Now I am by no means saying that I always agree with you or think that you always get the better of your opponents, but when you do it may be just that they arent as knowledgable in these subjects, or not as well read such that they dont know the lingo. It does not mean they are stupid. Also, I recognize that often they are resorting to the same name calling tactics, I will call them on it, as I do below, just as I will you. Now, that being said, I look foward to your next post on this most interesting thread.

Gregor,
You seem to be resorting to the same tactics of name calling. When Victor disputed your take on communism, why wouldnt you just ask him to clarify, rather than insulting him?

My two cents regarding what these two are arguing (and my limited knowledge of politics):
communism in its true form has never been tried because every time it has been attempted it has been co-opted by an elite class that basically turned it into totalitanarism or whatever. Correct Victor?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Charles Livingston

However, you seem to always end up calling the person you are in diaglogue with some form of 'stupid'.not always.

Now I am by no means saying that I always agree with you or think that you always get the better of your opponents, but when you do it may be just that they arent as knowledgable in these subjects, or not as well read such that they dont know the lingo.Ignorance is no sin. Ignorant arrogance is. Gregor is not merely ignorant, he is arrogant about it.

communism in its true form has never been tried because every time it has been attempted it has been co-opted by an elite class that basically turned it into totalitanarism or whatever. Correct Victor?No. What you say is arguably true for socialism -- one could make a decent case for there never having been a true socialist country, Soviet block being state capitalism instead. Communism is supposed to be the next stage of socioeconomic progress after socialism, according to its 20th-century proponents. It has never been tried because nobody has ever implemented a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) form of socialism. Even the 'Communist party' in USSR never claimed to have offered communism -- they said that communism was something they were working towards, not something they achieved. the moniker "communist countries" is thus an unfortunate linguistic confusion -- they are 'communist" not because they attained communism as one might suppose, but because they were controlled by the parties that claimed to have been working towards communism.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Charles Livingston

not always.

True, I wasnt very fair by using the term 'always', lets substitute 'sometimes' instead.

Ignorance is no sin. Ignorant arrogance is. Gregor is not merely ignorant, he is arrogant about it.

Are you referring to other threads? I havent seen ignorant arrogance here, just a name-calling response.

No. What you say is arguably true for socialism -- one could make a decent case for there never having been a true socialist country, Soviet block being state capitalism instead. Communism is supposed to be the next stage of socioeconomic progress after socialism, according to its 20th-century proponents. It has never been tried because nobody has ever implemented a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) form of socialism. Even the 'Communist party' in USSR never claimed to have offered communism -- they said that communism was something they were working towards, not something they achieved. the moniker "communist countries" is thus an unfortunate linguistic confusion -- they are 'communist" not because they attained communism as one might suppose, but because they were controlled by the parties that claimed to have been working towards communism.

Ah, very well said. So your definition of communism is the 'final stage of society in Marxist theory'.

Edited to add taht my responses appear above as part of hte quote, sorry, dont know how to fix.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Charles Livingston

I havent seen ignorant arrogance here, just a name-calling response.the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

Ah, very well said. So your definition of communism is the 'final stage of society in Marxist theory'.it's not "my" definition. it's the definition (more or less) maintained by various political theorists, including marxist and communist ones.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

What about namecalling instead of remedying one's evasiveness? Does that qualify as arrogance?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Gregor
Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried. I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.

Well, first of its a fact that communism as described by Marx has never been tried.

Secodnly taking issue with capitalism does not mean that you want to implement Marxist Communism.

There are a million ways to skin a cat. Marx developed his ideas prior to the Americna Civil War, things have changed.

When anyone talks about Socialism or Communism they are nto saying that the want to impliment what Russia or China did. Anyone who known anything about Russia and China and Marxism knows that neither of those countries really implimented communism in any way shape or form, they just abused a movement that had popular support during the time to get themselves in power and then became dictators.

People talk about Mao and Stalin killing a lot of people when they took power. Do you know who they killed? They killed all the members of the communsit parties. Mao and Stalin were not Marxists or Communsits they were tyrants who cared nothing for Marxism or Communism, just nationalism and self power. When they came to power their biggest opponents were the Communist Parties, the Marxists. They killed the Marxists and implimented dictatorship. All they did was take advantage of revolutionary situations to rise to power.

All of the best prospects of Communism were destroyed by America, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicoragua, and Cuba.

Now, I don't even agree with Communism anyway, but I don't agree with free-market capitalism either. As I said, I hope this country gets its wish. Bush will give it to you, and in 20 years you can be a slave worker for the fascist elite as well.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Charles Livingston

the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

it's not "my" definition. it's the definition (more or less) maintained by various political theorists, including marxist and communist ones.

I didnt mean to imply anything with the 'my'.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Malachi
I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.
But in the process aren't you also creating more jobs for those skilled in technology? This is a good thing. The problem isn't that you're "killing" jobs, rather, it is that the would-be-temporarily unemployed aren't trying to acquire new skills.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The rich derive benefit from healthy, educated populace -- it takes myopic lack of vision to not understand how even the rich benefit by having progressively taxed welfare state.
Isn't this why many employers offer medical insurance, investment opportunities, flex time, maternity leave, in-house child daycare facilities, etc? The medical insurance I receive from my employer far exceeds the national healthcare provided in Canada and the UK. I think business owners understand full-well that a healthy, educated, happy work force is in their best interests.


Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Communism has never been tried, dude. And you clearly have no clue about what communism is (based upon which, I can assume with some certainty that you don't know what socialism is either).
Are you familiar with the Plymouth colony and the Mayflower Compact? It's my understanding that the colony was quite communistic for some time, only to buckle under a stagnant high unemployment rate and a nasty drought. If I'm wrong, and Plymouth wasn't communism, feel free to correct me.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jude

Isn't this why many employers offer medical insurance, investment opportunities, flex time, maternity leave, in-house child daycare facilities, etc? The medical insurance I receive from my employer far exceeds the national healthcare provided in Canada and the UK. I think business owners understand full-well that a healthy, educated, happy work force is in their best interests.Yup. And this is why there are many rich who are in favor of progressive taxation.

Are you familiar with the Plymouth colony and the Mayflower Compact?yes.

It's my understanding that the colony was quite communistic for some time, only to buckle under a stagnant high unemployment rate and a nasty drought.And rampant free-rider problem, I understand.

If I'm wrong, and Plymouth wasn't communism, feel free to correct me.As far as I know, Plymouth was de-facto communist, and its failure in that regard exemplifies why communism is impractical.

[Gregor]

I've simply made a comment regarding the thread topic - whether progressive taxes are any solution or are more communistic (in the vernacular sense). I've not attacked Victor, personally.

It appears that Victor's acrimonious textual diarrhea reflects a deep-seated self hatred or insecurity. I wonder why he feels the need to lash out? Perhaps a date or inter-personal contact would help.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I've simply made a comment regarding the thread topic - whether progressive taxes are any solution or are more communistic (in the vernacular sense).You simply refused to own up to error, instead accusing me of ad-hominem attacks on you.

It appears that Victor's acrimonious textual diarrhea reflects a deep-seated self hatred or insecurity. I wonder why he feels the need to lash out? Perhaps a date or inter-personal contact would help.i am happily married, with three kids no less. Perhaps you need to examine your deep-seated need to avoid admission of error by displacing blame?.. :rolleyes:

Charles livingston,

See what I meant?

[corplinx]

Let me defend everyone's favorite guy Victor. Most countries we have though of as "communist" were actually military dictatorships or one party autocracries under the guise of communism. In essence, these were huge feudal stats where everyone worked for the one party or the army.

So when Victor says communism hasn't been tried, I think you could make the arguement that he is correct of you use the classical definition of communism. Its sorta like liberal/conservative. Most people who claim to be one or the other don't fit the classical definitions.


Back on topic, I still haven't seen anyone show me how a 2 percent tax cut favors someone making 500,000 dollars over someone making 50,000. Each gets 2 percent according to their means back. Thats equality in its simplest form.

I do like how someone brought up the fact that income isn't as good a gauge of "rich" as net worth. There are folks in the PRK (peoples republic kalifornia) making 500,000 but are far from financially free.

[jj]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Gregor

You simply refused to own up to error, instead accusing me of ad-hominem attacks on you.

i am happily married, with three kids no less. Perhaps you need to examine your deep-seated need to avoid admission of error by displacing blame?.. :rolleyes:

Charles livingston,

See what I meant?

Well, Victor, I'm not going to launch into your character, but I think it's hard to criticize the idea that Communism is a religion based on the following article of faith, taken and held counter to many years of human history:

The human being will continue to work at or near maximum effort even in the presence of no reward for suck effort.

Note, I said "religion" not "deism".

You could (as I have) suggest that pure Capitalism is similarly flawed.

I would submit that true communism has been tried, but that due to its inherent flaws, always collapses into a totalitarian, militaristic state.

I'm sorry, to me, and I say this based on all the evidence available to date, this does suggest that communism is a failed philosophy/religion.

So I disagree with you.

[Malachi151]

But in the process aren't you also creating more jobs for those skilled in technology? This is a good thing. The problem isn't that you're "killing" jobs, rather, it is that the would-be-temporarily unemployed aren't trying to acquire new skills.

Arguable. Not really. We have a company that employs about 30 people. Our company can then put hundreds of people out of a job.

What essentially happens in that part of the money saved by doctors by being able to fire people goes to us and part goes to him.

Now, what Victor is saying is all right. This is the situation though. I think that more wealthy view things the way Victor says, BUT there is a group of "conservatives" the Bushites or whatever, that maybe are just stupid or arrogant or ignorant, or they believe their own propaganda I don't what, but they are screwing this whole things up for everyone.

Who does a progressive tax benefit? Everyone, especially the wealthy. Who does welfare benefit? Everyone, mostly the wealthy. Who does Social Security benefit? Everyone, mostly the wealthy.

You see, all of these things take pressure off of the private system allowing the private system to be less responsible, which in turn allows the wealthy to be more wealthy.

Once you go to a flat tax and take away social programs, then what? then you have masses of unemployed people with no way to take care of themselves rioting and getting angery and stealing, and no one can maintian in that situation. To prevent that then the wealthy would have to start paying more and hiring more people just to give them something to do to keep them busy. The the price of labor would have to go up to keep discrepency down.

Now the Bush crew does not appear to be trying to to these things to favor the middle class or poor, they are trying to favor teh rich, but in doing so they are tearning down the system that sustains the rich for short term gain. So to me this all looks like pure stupidity.

The people that built America up after WWII, those people were not idiots, they were very smart and they built the strongest nation in the world out of that situation. Those people had "liberal" economic policy and it created a stable and solid economy tha benefited evreyone, and thus ultimately the rich.

Some rich, like the Bush and Steve Forbes types seems to be arrogant idiots that don't understand how they got where they got due to being 3rd and 4th generation multi-millionairs. So now they are tearing down teh system that created wealth in order to try and keep more of what they already have.

They are fascists.

Look at all of history. Look at the great civilizations. Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Aztecs, China, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, Ottoman Empire, the USA up to the turn of the century, etc.

None fo these civlizatiosn had equality. They were all built on exploitation. Civilization is built on exploitation. Greece was arguabel the most equal and fair, but even the Greeks had slaves.

Do you think they built the pyramids with unions and fair wages? Hell no. The British Empire enslaved millions of people, the Spanish Empire enslaved even more and robbed trillions of dollars worth of gold and tresures. That is how EVERY civilization became "great", through exploitation of the many to built the greatness of the few.

America is the same. We killed somewhere between 10 million and 100 million natives in North America (no one know for sure how many), stole their land, and had an economy built on slavery up until the 1870s. That's how America achieved economic greatness.

Equality and fairness does not produce a powerful civilization, and that is just a fact.

The fascists acknowledge this and to them the goal of humanity is to build a great civilization. You always hear these people talk about civilization. To them civilization is more importnat than fairness or equality. They know that it requires unfairness to produce wealth and power and great acomplishments and they hold those things more important than humanity.

It is a choice between civilization and humanity, because civilization is the product of inhumanity. That is what WWII was all about.

The Communists wanted to "destroy civilization" and create equality and humanity, the fascists prized civilization above all else and felt that exploitation is justifiable because it benefits civilizatoin and the wealthy elite who they feel are superior and deserve to rule over teh common man.

The Americans in power under FDR and the ones that retained strong influence after the war saught a middle ground. By the end of the 1960s though those people began fading from power and the wealthy American fascists have begun their rise to power.

They are hear to repeat the issues that led up to WWII once again, prizing progress and civilization over humanity. Trying to reconstruct a Roman or Egyptian Empire of power and prestige, that rides on the back of economic inequality.

Do not beleive that they people will do anything that is going to bring us all closer together, no they are here to separate the working classes from the wealthy elite and make them slaves to the wealthy. The brainwashing has already been taking place for 20 years. Look at how people jump to the defense of the wealthy so quickly, they are brainwshed with lies and deception and a lack of economic understanding. The rich are getting richer, they are going to continue gettign richer, the difference between the avearge person and the super wealthy is growing daily and will continue to grow until the average person is powerless economically and politcally.

[Gregor]

Vic
I didn't accuse you of making an ad hominem attack. I pointed out that you made an ad hominem attack. And you did.

And as you fail to realize, this thread did not start out as a discourse on general political theory and terminology. I was responding to Malachi's general diatribe against capitalism and taxes by simply asserting that socialism and communism were failed systems. The topic of this thread was not arguing about whether the Oneida colony was true communism or not. My comment was a generalization in response to Malachi's generalization.


And since you're more at home with the ad hominem attack . . . let me send my apologies to you wife and kids for being married and related to such an offensive boor. You attitude is reprehensible and your personality is offensive. I can only hope that you're not such a braying ass in person.

[Victor Danilchenko]

jj

I would submit that true communism has been tried, but that due to its inherent flaws, always collapses into a totalitarian, militaristic state.i would be interested in seeing you support such an assertion. I know a little bit about the modern communist revolutions, and nothing I know suggests your interpretation.

I'm sorry, to me, and I say this based on all the evidence available to date, this does suggest that communism is a failed philosophy/religion.What evidence is that? When has communism been tried and failed, on societal scale?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I didn't accuse you of making an ad hominem attack. I pointed out that you made an ad hominem attack. And you did.I called you an ignoramus, that's true -- in response to you calligm malachi a "woo-woo". In case you missed it, I merely returned to you what you already sent out.

And as you fail to realize, this thread did not start out as a discourse on general political theory and terminology. I was responding to Malachi's general diatribe against capitalism and taxes by simply asserting that socialism and communism were failed systems.No, you didn't. You asserted that (wrongly), and then you called malachi a woo-woo. You reap what you sow.

And since you're more at home with the ad hominem attack . . .I am at home with truth and facts. You, apparently, are not.

let me send my apologies to you wife and kids for being married and related to such an offensive boor. You attitude is reprehensible and your personality is offensive. I can only hope that you're not such a braying ass in person.Envious, huh? I suppose envy is a progress from outright stupidity, though...

[Gregor]

I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported. My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported.And I stand by my conclusion that you are ignorant of basic political theory. <shrug> Malachi's errors (which I agree are there) don't give you license to engage in contrary errors of your own.

My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.of course it is. You have to protect your ego from the horror of <gasp> admitting error. You simply cannot admit that you made an uninformed, ignorant comment off the cuff.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.Methinks the bitch doth protest too much... :D

P. S. if you think I made argumenta ad hominem, I suggest you brush up on basiuc logic, too.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Gregor
I stand by my conclusion that I think Malachi's opinions are extreme and unsupported. My new opinion is that you must be a braaying ass in person, too.

With my own wife and kids, there is nothing I see in you that I would envy. Nothing.

Feel free to point out specfic errors. See, this is what people do, they just cop-out and say "I disagree". Its because they can't come up with a factual or logical way to disagree because their views are baseless in the first place, so they cop-out and stick to their baseless views.

[Gregor]

My opinion of you has changed Victor . . . oh, wait a minute, no it hasn't. I just hope your insecurities will let you sleep at night.

[corplinx]

The rhetoric war in washington has gotten even sillier. The new child tax credits would result in overages (people get back money they never paid in taxes in the first place). So, the credits were removed for people in this corner case.

Common sense, right? Wrong. Charles Rangle and others were out stumping today saying those evil republicans were taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

I have nothing against democrats. My state has a superb democrat governor (Phil Bredesen). However, these national level talking heads who continually spout off nonsense like this push away potential donors or possible supporters with half a brain.

[ehbowen]

I think that it should be accepted as a fundamental tenet of our system of government, even to the point of being added to our constitution, that no american citizen should be taxed at a higher rate than any other american citizen. Yes, I believe in either a truly flat income tax or a national sales tax. And this I say as someone who would, at present, probably pay more under a flat tax or national sales tax. I don't expect to be poor forever. But, poor or wealthy, I want to be treated fairly.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Ed
Would someone please define "rich"

Anybody who makes more money than you do.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I think that it should be accepted as a fundamental tenet of our system of government, even to the point of being added to our constitution, that no american citizen should be taxed at a higher rate than any other american citizen. Yes, I believe in either a truly flat income tax or a national sales tax. And this I say as someone who would, at present, probably pay more under a flat tax or national sales tax. I don't expect to be poor forever. But, poor or wealthy, I want to be treated fairly.

I never undestood. This this WHOLE idea comes from what? Just a bunch of proaganda class warefare you have been subjected to by the Reaganites? Yes. The fact is that a flat tax has NO baiss is sound economic policy. All the people that are for it think they are for it becuase its somehow "morally right". Thats insane.

Anyone who thinks that Bill Gates is a victem of American society and a victem of the American tax system needs to go to the doctor and have their head examined.

As for defining rich, right now I would define "rich" in America as the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. My dad is in the top 2% and he's not rich, which is pretty sad, it just shows how "rich' that top 1% is. My dad makes about $300,000 a year, he lives very comfortably, but lives in a regular neighborhood, drives a Dodge pickup truck, owns a boat, and works 5 days a week and is on call for wekeends. That's pretty much a normal middle class life, there is huge difference between that and multi-millionairs, which is what the top 1% is.

All these flat-tax loons are being decieved by taxe3s that are weighted too far towards the middle class. Its BECAUSE when you go from making $25,000a year to $70,000 athat you get huge tax increases that people perceive a problem, but the problem is not graduated taxes, the problem is that the taxes are "too flat".

The top tax bracket in America in 2002 was about $300,000 a year. Now under Bush its $130,000 a year. THAT'S the problem. We have people making $30,000,000 a year. The top tax bracket needs to be only at least $4 million a year or even higher.

In the 1940s the top tac bracket was on $5 million a year, which today that would be like having the top tax bracket on about $30 million a year.

By doing that you made the rate at which taxes increase much less dramatic, so that instead of going up by 15% or 10% over a $100,000 range it goes up by only 5% over a $100,000 range, its a less harsh increase as you go up.

Everyone in this country for the past 20 years that has been making over about $400,000 a year has been robbing the country blind, because from about $300,000 a year taxes never go up anymore, YET between $0 and $300,000 they went up dramatically and it hurt very hard as you move up in that middle class range. However, one you break out of the middle class and become rich then taxes become pain free, which is why the top 5% of Americans have become so ultra-wealthy over the past 20 years while the middle class has suffered. A flat tax is nothing but a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the poor. Tell me again how that could in any way work?

And again if you really look at what teh rich are saying the rich ar ethe people who least want a flat-tax, they know good and well it would destroy the country. The main rich that want a flax tax are 2nd and 3rd generatrion multi-millionairs, because they never earned it, they never moved up through the ranks. People like Bill Gates are all for a graduated tax.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yup. And this is why there are many rich who are in favor of progressive taxation.

Guilt-ridden liberal Democrats and the Hollywood left don't count... ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I never undestood. This this WHOLE idea comes from what? Just a bunch of proaganda class warefare you have been subjected to by the Reaganites? Yes. The fact is that a flat tax has NO baiss is sound economic policy. All the people that are for it think they are for it becuase its somehow "morally right". Thats insane.

Anyone who thinks that Bill Gates is a victem of American society and a victem of the American tax system needs to go to the doctor and have their head examined.

As for defining rich, right now I would define "rich" in America as the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. My dad is in the top 2% and he's not rich, which is pretty sad, it just shows how "rich' that top 1% is. My dad makes about $300,000 a year, he lives very comfortably, but lives in a regular neighborhood, drives a Dodge pickup truck, owns a boat, and works 5 days a week and is on call for wekeends. That's pretty much a normal middle class life, there is huge difference between that and multi-millionairs, which is what the top 1% is.

All these flat-tax loons are being decieved by taxe3s that are weighted too far towards the middle class. Its BECAUSE when you go from making $25,000a year to $70,000 athat you get huge tax increases that people perceive a problem, but the problem is not graduated taxes, the problem is that the taxes are "too flat".

The top tax bracket in America in 2002 was about $300,000 a year. Now under Bush its $130,000 a year. THAT'S the problem. We have people making $30,000,000 a year. The top tax bracket needs to be only at least $4 million a year or even higher.

In the 1940s the top tac bracket was on $5 million a year, which today that would be like having the top tax bracket on about $30 million a year.

By doing that you made the rate at which taxes increase much less dramatic, so that instead of going up by 15% or 10% over a $100,000 range it goes up by only 5% over a $100,000 range, its a less harsh increase as you go up.

Everyone in this country for the past 20 years that has been making over about $400,000 a year has been robbing the country blind, because from about $300,000 a year taxes never go up anymore, YET between $0 and $300,000 they went up dramatically and it hurt very hard as you move up in that middle class range. However, one you break out of the middle class and become rich then taxes become pain free, which is why the top 5% of Americans have become so ultra-wealthy over the past 20 years while the middle class has suffered. A flat tax is nothing but a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the poor. Tell me again how that could in any way work?

And again if you really look at what teh rich are saying the rich ar ethe people who least want a flat-tax, they know good and well it would destroy the country. The main rich that want a flax tax are 2nd and 3rd generatrion multi-millionairs, because they never earned it, they never moved up through the ranks. People like Bill Gates are all for a graduated tax.


Blah, blah, blah....

Basically, you just want to punitively tax the most successful and prosperous people in the country, and you have the audacity to claim that it's all in the name of "fairness".