Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    saboudian's Avatar
    saboudian is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan State University
    Posts
    1,712

  2. #2
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    ive seen these in one form or another a number of times. too bad that regardless of the sources posted and the facts and figures there are still a lot of folk that wont "believe". whats funny to me is that almost all of the people who support this type of taxation dont make anywhere near enough money for it to work out well for them.

  3. #3
    Casanova33's Avatar
    Casanova33 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    ive seen these in one form or another a number of times. too bad that regardless of the sources posted and the facts and figures there are still a lot of folk that wont "believe". whats funny to me is that almost all of the people who support this type of taxation dont make anywhere near enough money for it to work out well for them.
    i was thinkin the exact same thing yesterday. i guess they think they are richer than they really are so maybe those type of tax cuts will help them.

  4. #4
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    im going on a work trip for 5 days, and when i come back i want to see some good arguments on this topic from you extreme republicans. get busy, ill be back on sunday.

  5. #5
    sigrabbit's Avatar
    sigrabbit is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    842
    While I only glanced at the link, here are the three points that jumped out at me:

    1. It looks like we are moving towards a more fair taxation of all people;
    2. You can twists stats to say just about anything you want; and
    3. I would be more interested in current tax stats.

  6. #6
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    This post is pointless and smacks of communism. Why do libs feel that they deserve rich peoples money? What give then that right? I'm middleclass so I have a dog in this fight.

    I keep saying but no one listens this has always been and always will be the way it is. There are the "Royalty" and the "Masses". It has been that way since the beginning of time. The problem with libs is that they can't stand it.

    "It's not fair mommie!" cried the lib. No sh*t it's not fair but it's the way that it is and whining about it won't change it. Do you think the wealthy will allow it to change?

    That's like saying they have four tvs next dooe and we have none I think they should give us one of those tvs. Please explain why you are ENTITLED to it? The key word entitlement.

    As the manly men put it DEAL WITH IT!

  7. #7
    biglouie250's Avatar
    biglouie250 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,401
    Yo Sig I dont see how creating larger disparity between rich and poor is "fair" and how does taxing the middle class heavier and heavier considered "fair" as well.

  8. #8
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    I don't think there is an absolute "right or wrong" or "fair or unfair" way to deal with taxes. There's merit to the notion that everyone should chip in the same amount to pay the country's bills. There's also merit to the idea that if you've got jillions of $$$ and the other guy only has a few, then you should pony up a bit more. How much more is open to debate.

    So . . . both views have merit, IMHO. In the end, though, I think what eventually happens depends on how loudly each side bitches. If the poor and middleclass pay a 80% of their income on taxes and the rich pay only 5%, then ya, you're gonna have a bunch of angry people rioting in the streets. On the other hand, if you tax the rich people too much, they're gonna move their assets overseas (a tax haven like Bermuda), and the poor will have to pay that much more.

    What's fair or unfair really doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things. What actually happens depends on how much each interest group grouses to the politicians, and they'll do whatever it takes to please their patrons and stay in office.

    Funny thing is, though, that wealthy people know what's in their best interest. Poor and middle class folks usually don't, and end up supporting policies that work against 'em. But, c'est la vie.

    -Tock

  9. #9
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Excellent post Tock, the problem with the "poor" not knowing what policy is best is really a moot point. The rich will just change the rules/loopholes as they go , they have the power. It sucks and it is not fair, but that's the way it is.

  10. #10
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Excellent post Tock, the problem with the "poor" not knowing what policy is best is really a moot point. The rich will just change the rules/loopholes as they go , they have the power. It sucks and it is not fair, but that's the way it is.
    Well, the rich may have the power, but any time the poor and middle class want to change things, all they gotta do is figure out what they need and vote for it. Won't ever happen, though. Pretty much, once most people have their "bread and circuses" (full belly and cable TV), they don't care much about anything else. And usually just parrot what they hear, not much thought given to much of anything.

    So, things won't really change much, unless things get really desperate, like 30% unemployment among educated folks. Probably see clamoring for socialism or communism, like what happened back in the Great Depression of the 1930's.

    -Tock

  11. #11
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    It would take a mojor depression for a long period of time to see any changes like that in the U.S.A. and yes we are all too cozy to do anything to change it.

  12. #12
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    Treating every dollar equal is the ONLY fair way of taxation. A progressive tax scheme, what every modern western nation has, is an exceedingly distorted way attempt to equalize real income.

    Governments at all levels tax citizens to provide services ranging from roads to national defence. A look at some different forms of tax:

    INCOME TAX: Should be a flat tax. There is no reason that Bill Gates should be obligated to contribute more to America's tax revenue than any other single person. Placing and abnormally high share of the burden on people who earn more is unfair, plain and simple. Certainly, Bill and everyone else like him, comsume far less public resources (here I am excluding things like police services and national defence which are consumed equally by all taxpayers. Obviously Gates and Buffet are not ever going to need Medicaid, unemployment insurance, wefare, etc, etc) than people in lower income brackets. A progressive incmoe tax is simply another case of the lower income majority trying to get a free ride at someone else's expense.

    CONSUMPTION TAX: Consumption taxes are fair game, because for the most part, they are avoidable.

    EXISE TAXES: Also fair because they attempt (tho in practice it's difficult) to place the costs associated with an activity squarely on the people who engage in the said activity. Think of smoking, I don't know how it works in the USA, but in Canada these bums (smokers, yes if you smoke you are a degenerate bum) are taxed in an attempt to recover some of the costs which they will be more likely to pose on a public medical system which can be statistically attributed to smoking, among other things.

  13. #13
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    The average Joe Millionaire has no more power than you or I in the political sense. I would argue that most rich people play the game with closer to what could be considered an optimal strategy, given any ruleset, than middle and lower income folk. This is only with regards to finances, or wealth generation.

    What percentage of poor people are self employed or own a corporation? What percentage of poor people bother to max out tax sheltered savings plans? What percentage of poor people take advantage of largely subsidized higher education?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Excellent post Tock, the problem with the "poor" not knowing what policy is best is really a moot point. The rich will just change the rules/loopholes as they go , they have the power. It sucks and it is not fair, but that's the way it is.

  14. #14
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    It would take a mojor depression for a long period of time to see any changes like that in the U.S.A. and yes we are all too cozy to do anything to change it.

    The big crash happened in 1929, and by 1934, the socialists and communists were pretty popular.
    Americans are fickle. Lots of people vote based on superficial qualities, like looks, or religion, or what they perceive as an "attitude," or if they fall off bicycles or look like a monkey or a mule. Most folks don't understand international policy, don't know the difference between the National Debt and the budget defecit, have no clue what's being done with all that $$$ collected from their paychecks for social security, what's gonna happen as the National trade defecit continues at the multi-hundred-billion $$$ pace, what's gonna happen to the price of oil as China and other 3rd world nations start driving more automobiles. Oh ya, if you don't know about the troubles to come, remember you heard it here. And you won't like it, either . . .

    If enough people get sufficiently disgusted with the Dems and Repubs, other parties will gain prominance. Maybe the Greens, maybe the socialists. Who knows . . . time will tell.

    -Tock

  15. #15
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,310
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    Treating every dollar equal is the ONLY fair way of taxation. A progressive tax scheme, what every modern western nation has, is an exceedingly distorted way attempt to equalize real income.

    Governments at all levels tax citizens to provide services ranging from roads to national defence. A look at some different forms of tax:

    INCOME TAX: Should be a flat tax. There is no reason that Bill Gates should be obligated to contribute more to America's tax revenue than any other single person. Placing and abnormally high share of the burden on people who earn more is unfair, plain and simple. Certainly, Bill and everyone else like him, comsume far less public resources (here I am excluding things like police services and national defence which are consumed equally by all taxpayers. Obviously Gates and Buffet are not ever going to need Medicaid, unemployment insurance, wefare, etc, etc) than people in lower income brackets. A progressive incmoe tax is simply another case of the lower income majority trying to get a free ride at someone else's expense.

    CONSUMPTION TAX: Consumption taxes are fair game, because for the most part, they are avoidable.

    EXISE TAXES: Also fair because they attempt (tho in practice it's difficult) to place the costs associated with an activity squarely on the people who engage in the said activity. Think of smoking, I don't know how it works in the USA, but in Canada these bums (smokers, yes if you smoke you are a degenerate bum) are taxed in an attempt to recover some of the costs which they will be more likely to pose on a public medical system which can be statistically attributed to smoking, among other things.
    You beat me to it. Great post.

  16. #16
    sigrabbit's Avatar
    sigrabbit is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    842
    I concur with MMC78 and Chico. That was my point about "fair." While I fall into the 4th tier or 20%ers, I hope to achieve the higher income tax brackets within 10 years. I think a flat tax would be the most fair, and give people in lower income tax brackets something to strive for in the future, rather than be content receiving government benefits.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •