Barack Too Risky?
Originally posted by Bardock42
How do we want it? Gradual?
-PETA protestors From the Simpsons. They want change over the next five years. What's confusing about that? It's better than immediate change, which frequently causes civil strife. Just look at the U.S. Civil Rights movement. Riots, clashes, assasinations- it was full of conflict. At least they didn't want to wreck this country.
[fundie I talked to-nearly verbatim]
I BET YOU WERE TOO WORRIED ABOUT YOUR CHICKEN TO THINK ABOUT THE TERRORISTS! THEY CUT THE STEWARDESS' THROATS, BUT YOU WERE WORRYING ABOUT THE CHICKEN'S THROAT. YOU MAKE ME SICK.
[/fundie]
Originally posted by chithappens
I could debunk all of this but I have had this discussion multiple times on here and it never goes well.It amazes me how short sighted a lot of people are about the financial situation of the average American. Even American citizens who are "well off" often lose sight of this.
I concede. I'm too lazy to bother. Good points though.
Dude, I'm in no way calling you a dumb ass or talking down to you. We are closer to agreeing than you think. I even admitted that my modified analogy fails because even the professional sprinter needs the fat guy...but there's no way I could think of to modify the analogy to make it work.
Bardock's doing a nice job of pointing out the other side of the tax fairness coin. The top 10% aren't the evil bastards that they are portrayed as. Okay, they are, but the serve a necessary function. They are footing the large majority of the bill for our social programs. They also pay taxes in ways we would never have to. I don't think we owe them a huge debt; but we should be thankful that there's someone out there footing the majority of our social bills for us, regardless of whether or not they want to do it.
However, don't get me wrong. I'm all for abolishing the IRS completely and leaving it up to excise taxes, tariffs, and other forms of government revenue. (We sell a crap load of military technologies to our allies.)
The more traffic your books have, the more you're going to pay for that traffic in the form of taxes. I think there should always be a nice balance of spending and taxes...so we can continue to give those companies those loopholes more commonly known as tax exemptions for specific things they do...but I do think it should be tightened up DURING the "abolishment" of the IRS.
Again, I'm not a "free the corporations" rabid GOP. I'm for fair and balances politics. The top 10 to 1% should NOT get a tax break unless all income brackets get a tax break. A flat tax would more fair, would it not? I think Huckabee said 25% flat tax. That's what you paid. Dude, I pay more than 25% taxes right now, but I claim 0. If I was single with no children, I'd probably have to pay a butt load of money into the federal system.
And about all the other points I made. Yes, dude, there's a buttload of heads rollin' because of this financial crisis. You can bet your sweet *** that some of those rich mofos lost their jobs over this. I think I've even heard things like "dissolved the board of chairmen" and such. That's steep...but they probably got severance to the tune of millions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, I'm in no way calling you a dumb ass or talking down to you. We are closer to agreeing than you think. I even admitted that my modified analogy fails because even the professional sprinter needs the fat guy...but there's no way I could think of to modify the analogy to make it work.Bardock's doing a nice job of pointing out the other side of the tax fairness coin. The top 10% aren't the evil bastards that they are portrayed as. Okay, they are, but the serve a necessary function. They are footing the large majority of the bill for our social programs. They also pay taxes in ways we would never have to. I don't think we owe them a huge debt; but we should be thankful that there's someone out there footing the majority of our social bills for us, regardless of whether or not they want to do it.
However, don't get me wrong. I'm all for abolishing the IRS completely and leaving it up to excise taxes, tariffs, and other forms of government revenue. (We sell a crap load of military technologies to our allies.)
The more traffic your books have, the more you're going to pay for that traffic in the form of taxes. I think there should always be a nice balance of spending and taxes...so we can continue to give those companies those loopholes more commonly known as tax exemptions for specific things they do...but I do think it should be tightened up DURING the "abolishment" of the IRS.
Again, I'm not a "free the corporations" rabid GOP. I'm for fair and balances politics. The top 10 to 1% should NOT get a tax break unless all income brackets get a tax break. A flat tax would more fair, would it not? I think Huckabee said 25% flat tax. That's what you paid. Dude, I pay more than 25% taxes right now, but I claim 0. If I was single with no children, I'd probably have to pay a butt load of money into the federal system.
And about all the other points I made. Yes, dude, there's a buttload of heads rollin' because of this financial crisis. You can bet your sweet *** that some of those rich mofos lost their jobs over this. I think I've even heard things like "dissolved the board of chairmen" and such. That's steep...but they probably got severance to the tune of millions.
Well the thing is, let's say the socialist got their wish and things became more "fair" for the proletariat - the taxes still get paid. I understand what you mean by saying we should be "thankful" that someone foots the bill, but why should I be thankful about something that should occur anyway? Even if money were more spread out, the taxes would (should?) get paid, ideally anyway.
To me, it's like giving kudos to Ford for installing windshield wipers on every car they manufacture. Shouldn't they be there anyway?
Not sure how the IRS thing would work out. I do agree with you, but that would be hard to get most people to agree to (unless a republican pushed it hard; imagine if Obama said this now 😄 ) Flat tax is the way to go, but it won't happen anytime soon.
I guess I shouldn't have said it so absolute. Obviously, some rich people lost their jobs, but it's unlikely they are in any trouble of losing all their assets unless they spent like athletes without thinking about it. What I was getting at was that it is unlikely they are in danger of losing basic necessities (shelter, clothing, food) and in a condition where they are unable to live a decent life.
On the other hand, are the guys still receiving their bonuses from tax payer money AFTER they go bankrupt and getting spa treatments from the "Bailout."
😆
On the topic of tax, apparently over 45 million people who file tax returns at the lower end of the spectrum, which is apparently a third of all filers, can make claims to the amount of paying zero tax or less, i.e. are rebated due to the refundability of some tax credits - although this number is outdated.
Frankly your government would probably be able to tax less without running deficits while still providing requisite social programmes if it reprioritised which areas of spending get the what.
Originally posted by chithappensThe people under 5% aren't getting particularly screwed, when they probably didn't pay for much if any of that $700 billion anyway. And that low income earners took loans they shouldn't have is at least partially they're own fault - these companies, as greedy and shortsighted as they were didn't force anyone to try and buy a house. Blaming it purely on predatory lenders is simply politicking.
I don't give a damn the total number of what the top whatever pays. It does not proportionally makes sense.Do we measure how fast a fat man can run against a Olympic sprinter? You could, but it doesn't make sense to do so.
It is the fact that the people under the 5% are getting screwed. We are bailing out some of the rich who screwed up in the first place. Regardless of all the bitching the top percentage does, they are not being hurt.
They stay in their homes. They are not losing jobs. They are not losing commas out of their accounts. They are not taking up extra work to make ends meet.
That argument about what they pay is complete bullshit.
At the end of the day... you play the hand you're dealt. Unless you're suggesting we just start giving away gold medals to fat people.
And in relation to the credit crisis, when you bluff too often with a crap hand eventually you'll probably lose big.
Originally posted by inimalistAgreed, so in utilitarian terms it's more "fair" and logical to tax "the wealthy" more of the total tax revenue.
do the rich pay more of the total tax revenue of the country? yesare the rich as adversely affected by their tax contribution? no
see, there are two very different ways of looking at the problem of taxation, one that actually addresses how governments affect people, and one that works as a right wing talking point 🙂
At the same time complaining about how greedy and horrible and ugly the wealthy are is simply biting the hand that feeds you.
The US employs a progressive tax system, ergo in both absolute and percentage terms it is taxing higher earners more; which is why it currently amounts to something like 10% of earners paying for over 70% of tax, and even under a flat tax system the higher income earners would still pay the bulk of taxation.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The US employs a progressive tax system, ergo in both absolute and percentage terms it is taxing higher earners more; which is why it currently amounts to something like 10% of earners paying for over 70% of tax, and even under a flat tax system the higher income earners would still pay the bulk of taxation.
So what is the percentage of income taxed v. those who earn less?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
...?If you're referring to marginal tax rates then the range goes from 10-35% depending upon income, afaik.
If you're referring to percentage of total tax revenue, then... 70% as already stated for the top 10% vs 30% for the remaining 90% of earners.
Depending on income. I have no issues with stating that the top 1% pay the most taxes, via amount v. income. But is that number considered when espousing the top tax payers? Billionaires have the luxury of shipping ther post office box over seas, but the average citizen doesn't. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are asking the question of relevance. They're some of the richest men in the world, and they're saying their tax breaks don't mean a thing. Granted, they give a lot to charity. They have to do as much.
I'm not espousing the top tax payers; I'm simply not demonizing them collectively; and essentially playing both sides of the "fairness" argument. If I were to pick one of the candidates tax plans, it would be Obama's as it produces less of a fiscal deficit - regardless of whether it's fair to redistribute income in such a fashion.
I'm in full agreement with the fact that the detriment of higher taxation to higher income earners is minimal or negligible. But whether or not it's "fair" can be taken in different ways.
One can say it's not particularly fair for the wealthy, the Buffetts the Gateses to earn millions or billions a year - or that it's fair that they should have to pay more proportionally in taxation since they earn so much anyway.
But then the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gateses have done things that the the guy who flips burgers or works on a factory line hasn't and that's made them the richest people in the world. They've created things of value to people, and that value has translated into their personal wealth. Ergo one can say it's just as fair for them to keep the same proportion of their money they earned as anyone else; they did after all earn it.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotBut then the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gateses have done things that the the guy who flips burgers or works on a factory line hasn't and that's made them the richest people in the world. They've created things of value to people, and that value has translated into their personal wealth. Ergo one can say it's just as fair for them to keep the same proportion of their money they earned as anyone else; they did after all earn it.
That's not always true. A lot of people do jobs that are very valuable to society and they aren't paid much.
On the other hand, you got entertainers, athlethes (the hollywood types) just living it up.
Not demonizing, just pointing it out.
Interesting video.