Quote :

"The fairtax would make everyone in the US and visitors federal tax payers. "

International tax agreements means foreigners who are visiting the country don't have to pay taxes.

7/23/2008 10:19:51 AM

They dont pay income tax, but they would pay a fairtax and state sales tax. I believe.

7/23/2008 10:27:13 AM

Fairtax is a mythological fairytale that billionaires tell their children at bedtime

7/23/2008 10:34:26 AM

Quote :

"Riiiiiiiight. Because only American products are worth buying at all. Fuck everything else. That includes oil, right? I take it you support drilling only for oil in the US. What about your electronics? No more Sony or Hitachi or whatever. I'm glad you know best how to spend my money, given that your protectionist ideas have failed our economy so many times over..."

Well obviously certain things must be imported but I'm talking more specifically about people taking money from our poor and then investing it in other countries instead of putting it back.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't anyone be able to do so if he so chooses?"

I'm not sure if you know how banks work or pay much attention to economic news but our banks are currently backed up by only 1.25% of what is actually there. With the indymac crash last week 33billion of the reserve is gone and now Wachovia might be having trouble. The big talk is of a small threat of soon having a run on the banks.

Quote :

" Right... That's why even the poorest of the poor in America have cable-TV and a car, while the marginally poor in India are lucky to have a HOUSE and FOOD. Capitalism suuuuuuuure has failed us."

Since when did India become our standard? I know there are many countries with much better welfare, work rights, higher taxes and universal health care while the us is slipping further and further behind and it shows too. Theres no denying it.

Quote :

"All of that land you are talking about stealingconfiscating without cause would be able to go to public use? REALLY? 75% of the land in a certain city, which, by the way, you failed to identify... Guess what, noob, if you confiscated that land for "public use," the city would go BANKRUPT, because that land is generating, you guessed it, TAX REVENUE for the city."

Free land would be great. The government pays for land and pays rent all the time. Plus they could take it, sell it, and steal collect taxes.

Quote :

"That's three times you have stated there needs to be a salary cap, but you have YET to explain why."

Because capitalism causes a small few to make unimaginable amounts of money while the vast majority of population struggles. A salary cap somewhere in the tens of millions would help this. If walmart lowered their prices and raised wages until profits were decreased so they were all under the salary cap things would be a lot better instead of watching 4 or 5 people make billions of dollars at the expense of tens of millions of people. Walmart is just one example.

Quote :

"Considering that Walt Disney had a hard time buying up a small amount of land in Florida"

Actually the story is about how easy little Walt payed for the land because it was nothing but oranges in the middle of nowhere. I'm from Florida so you can't come in here playing that stuff on me.

Quote :

"Bill Gates is one hell of a humanitarian, so you might want to start thinking about those you slander"

I didn't slander him I just used his pocket as an example. Unless of course he is going around buying all the land. He is too rich though and a violator of anti-trust laws so he has to do something to save face, but hey, at least he's doing something. Do you know what % of his money has gone into charity? just curious.

Quote :

"And guess what? It'll probably end up favoring the white half of the time, and the black/hispanic half of the time, when all else is equal. NOW, if you can PROVE otherwise, then bring it up in court. Otherwise, shut the fuck up with your race warfare."

I've already posted an article. This is complete reality and goes on everyday. It is well known also, except by people that deny the existence of racism. Do some research on institutionalized racism, why don't you?

Quote :

"Riiiiiight. Now, instead of having the crime in one or two centralized locations, where we can devote more police resources and have more of an effect, we'll spread that crime out all over the city. Focusing police resources on one area will lead to a loss of resources in other areas, and guess what will happen? That area will be ignored. Good work!"

No, by spreading it out each area should have one police force, not a weak police force in the poor area. You act as if police otherwise wouldn't patrol the entire city. Are you saying poor people are the only ones who commit crimes? EVERYWHERE should be protected, educated and taken care of, not just rich areas. That is, if you want to claim things like "upward mobility" and "land of the free"

Quote :

""Consider yourself officially called out, you faggot!""

What is this out of? frustration? AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
IM A BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAST
IM A BEAST
IMA BEASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST

Quote :

"So, instead, we'll waste resources on people who don't even care to learn at the expense of those who do... Makes sense to me. That way we'll bring EVERYONE DOWN. Perfect idea!"

If that means bringing everyone down, then taxes need to be raised until everything is adequate. It is our responsibility as neighbors to take care of everything. That is part of being a community, nation, human.

Quote :

"Nope. Walmart sells what people want. I figured you weren't so obtuse as not to be able to figure that out... Trust me, if the lower classes of people didn't want it (since you claim that they are the ones being "exploited" by wally-world), Walmart wouldn't sell it. It is not in Walmart's interest to put unwanted product on its shelves."

Thank you for defining exploitation, instead of selling what people need, they find out what these people are suckers for and sell it to them so they can make fat money at the expense of these poor people. They would sell suicide if we let them.

7/23/2008 11:15:07 AM

Quote :

"International tax agreements means foreigners who are visiting the country don't have to pay taxes."

any person buying a US good would pay the tax. illegals, drug dealers and vistors are not excluded.

7/23/2008 11:29:06 AM

Quote :

"Free land would be great. The government pays for land and pays rent all the time. Plus they could take it, sell it, and steal collect taxes."

What idiot buys land when the government will just turn around and confiscate it again?

Widespread confiscation is why land located in the third world is worthless. So stealling land to give to the poor will not help their situation as the land will be worthless when they get it.

Quote :

"Well obviously certain things must be imported but I'm talking more specifically about people taking money from our poor and then investing it in other countries instead of putting it back."

Mercantilist nonsense. Preventing foreign trade makes rich people richer and poor people poorer by driving up prices by driving up profits in domestic business by preventing product competition from foreign business.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/23/2008 11:30:11 AM

Quote :

"Because capitalism causes a small few to make unimaginable amounts of money while the vast majority of population struggles. "

the experiement failed; communism does not work. Thanks for playing try again.

7/23/2008 11:33:44 AM

wethebest is an obvious parody. I would not waste your time debating him/her.

either that or a hopeless idealistic nut job and again, would not waste my time.

7/23/2008 11:39:40 AM

Quote :

"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html?mod=djemITP"

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

7/23/2008 1:30:45 PM

"This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes."

"According to the Joint Economic Committee, the share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of tax filers increased to 39.89% in 2006, while the tax share of the top 5% climbed to 60.14%. The income tax share of the top half rose to 97.01%, according to recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data (see chart above, click to enlarge). The tax shares are the highest on record for these groups based on comparable IRS data going back to 1986."

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/23/2008 1:36:50 PM

Unless your dad is fucking CEO of Wachovia or your mom is Angelina Jolie why the fuck do you care about the "burden" that the top 1% faces with high taxes.

The only bracket i care about is the

25%: from $32,551 to $78,850 which is the one i'm in and the

28% of the income between $87,801 and $173,500 (bc i'm only a couple raises or a promotion from this bracket)

other than this i'm tired of the lower class who pays near no taxes demanding more handouts. Also, i'm tired of the elite "35% of the income exceeding $366,650" crying about having to pay taxes as they roll to the marina in the Bentley in order to take their yacht out on the lake.

When i win the lottery or become the next Bill Gates then i may jump on the soap box for economic policies to help me hoard my income.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : l]

7/23/2008 3:01:04 PM

I think wethebest is actually Kris

7/23/2008 3:06:49 PM

im with HUR.

why do people who obviously are not even close to the top 5% of income earners in the US and never will be fight so hard to defend them.

because they seriously dont give a fuck about you and your crappy 90k salary.

7/23/2008 3:13:39 PM

^ Simple. Because of the economic benefits of lower tax rates.

7/23/2008 3:18:20 PM

Quote :

" i'm tired of the lower class who pays near no taxes demanding more handouts."

If they are paying no taxes once handouts are factored in, why should they get to vote?

No taxation w/out representation should work the other way too

7/23/2008 3:20:50 PM

^Woah, you are taking that quote "No taxation w/out representation " way out of context and mixing two completely different subjects.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM. Reason : o boy]

7/23/2008 3:31:25 PM

Hur and dental, I oppose soaking a minority simply because im in the majority. Its not moral, imo. Im all for fairness, and being in favor of taxing people a greater percentage who make more than me or because it doesnt affect me or never will is both childish and selfish imo.


Vix, that isnt a bad suggestion. In fact if we are going to make fewer and fewer people pay for everyone else, thier votes should count more too. Amazing how a progressive voting system will be deemed unfair here, but not a progressive tax system. LOL

7/23/2008 3:44:55 PM

Quote :

"If they are paying no taxes once handouts are factored in, why should they get to vote?"

in my opinion they shouldn't.

Quote :

"I oppose soaking a minority simply because im in the majority. Its not moral, imo. I'm all for fairness, and being in favor of taxing people a greater percentage"

well i am all for a flat income tax. I was just expressing my curiosity as to why hard core conservatives fight so passionately for the Donald Trumps, Hugh McCall's, warren buffet's, and steve job's of the world. I am sure they have plenty of lobbyists to hire to fight for their cause. Not to sound liberal by when it comes down to it i won't be upset that Rex Tillerson (current Exxon CEO) has to get a 50 foot yacht instead of a 90 foot yacht because he was taxed more to feed some welfare queens who would otherwise be breaking into my car to earn money to feed themselves.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : l]

7/23/2008 4:02:18 PM

Quote :

"why do people who obviously are not even close to the top 5% of income earners in the US and never will be fight so hard to defend them."

The same reason we care when we see people suffering during a disaster or want to help those less fortunate than us: an internal moral sense of justice that tells us what is right and wrong.

7/23/2008 4:02:47 PM

btw there is a remarkedly huge income/wealth gap btw the 5% (15million people) and the top .01% (30,000 people)

7/23/2008 4:07:56 PM

I'm trying to reconcile wanting to help the less fortunate with the BOOTSTRAPS mentality and it's like dividing by zero

7/23/2008 4:30:56 PM

Action has never heard the "teach a man to fish" saying huh.

Quote :

"The same reason we care when we see people suffering during a disaster or want to help those less fortunate than us: an internal moral sense of justice that tells us what is right and wrong. "

Very well stated LoneSnark

7/23/2008 5:11:36 PM

my same moral sense is applied to people who can not afford medical attention and with extremely bad luck much like those hit by a disaster.

My moral sense is applied less to those who make millions and must pay more taxes as a result.

flat tax is cool with me tho.

7/23/2008 8:18:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure if you know how banks work or pay much attention to economic news but our banks are currently backed up by only 1.25% of what is actually there. With the indymac crash last week 33billion of the reserve is gone and now Wachovia might be having trouble. The big talk is of a small threat of soon having a run on the banks."

Nice non-sequitur, there. So, people shouldn't be able to spend their money how they want to because of a one-time event which is wholly unrelated to how people choose to spend their money. Good work, troll.

Quote :

"Since when did India become our standard?"

Since you started claiming that our poor were so terribly in the shitter.

Quote :

"The government pays for land and pays rent all the time."

HA! How in the fuck do you think the government "pays rent?" That's right. It taxes us to do so. So tell, me genius, how is the government taxing us to pay rent for a bunch of land that it stole from people who were paying their own taxes on that land and generating economic opportunities and tax dollars for the city going to equal out in the end? Oh yeah, it won't. Unless the government taxes the piss out of every man, woman, child, and kitten it can find.

Quote :

"If walmart lowered their prices and raised wages until profits were decreased so they were all under the salary cap things would be a lot better instead of watching 4 or 5 people make billions of dollars at the expense of tens of millions of people. Walmart is just one example."

Wait, so now you are saying their should be a profit cap for Walmart? Either that, or you are honestly suggesting that Walmart should NOT pay it's executives a competitive salary, thereby causing those executives to move overseas for decent job opportunities, thus stifling any competitive edge that American companies might ever have, and killing each and every American corporation. Is that what you want?

Quote :

"Actually the story is about how easy little Walt payed for the land because it was nothing but oranges in the middle of nowhere. I'm from Florida so you can't come in here playing that stuff on me."

Then you ought to know that once people figured out what Disney was up to, the price of the surrounding land SKYROCKETED. You know, the very fucking thing I was alluding to...

Quote :

"I've already posted an article."

Doesn't mean the article proves anything...

Quote :

"Are you saying poor people are the only ones who commit crimes?"

Not at all. BUT, since you were the one noting that there is a lot of crime in poor areas, it stands to reason that those poor people are the ones committing the crimes there, right? Thus, if we followed your ludicrous suggestion and spread the poor throughout the city, it would naturally follow that the crime committed by said poor people would be more distributed throughout the city.

Quote :

"EVERYWHERE should be protected, educated and taken care of, not just rich areas."

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Nowhere did I say that only rich areas are protected by the police. Rather, I stated that it is more cost effective to heavily police crime-heavy areas.

Quote :

"If that means bringing everyone down, then taxes need to be raised until everything is adequate."

Haha. Keep raising taxes until everything is adequate, despite the fact that the higher you tax people, the less revenue you will generate. The beatings will continue until morale improves, right?

Quote :

"Thank you for defining exploitation, instead of selling what people need,"

Well, if the poor would actually buy what they NEED, then Walmart would only sell that. But, the poor are dumb enough to buy tons of other shit instead of what they need, so Walmart will sell that stuff, too. What, Walmart is supposed to NOT make profits?

Really, it sounds as if what you want is to have our corporations do things that will cause them to fail. You want piss-poor efficiency and effectiveness, basically.

Quote :

"my same moral sense is applied to people who can not afford medical attention and with extremely bad luck much like those hit by a disaster."

The great thing, though, is that there is nothing stopping you from buying less shit for yourself and donating to charities which will help these people. And the best part is, doing so does NOT infringe on any one else's rights or the moral sense that says it is not right to steal from a minority to appease the majority. Crazy, aint it?

7/23/2008 8:22:41 PM

Give a welfare queen a fish and she'll eat for a day

Let a welfare queen die and she won't be making your streets look dirty anymore

7/24/2008 12:51:48 AM

Everybody in this country has an equal chance to be successful and if someone gets a bad education it's their own fault

*cuts funding for inner-city schools*
*teaches creationism*

7/24/2008 1:01:05 AM

Why not just stop spending money on useless shit like Iraq, military bases in Europe, and welfare. Then we wouldn't be yelling at who to tax more.

7/24/2008 4:29:56 AM

^^lol

7/24/2008 4:36:41 AM

Quote :

"Since you started claiming that our poor were so terribly in the shitter. "

Its all relative. On a global scale its not really bad at all but on a "land of the free, nation with upward mobility, usa#1" scale, its pathetic.

Quote :

"HA! How in the fuck do you think the government "pays rent?" That's right. It taxes us to do so. So tell, me genius, how is the government taxing us to pay rent for a bunch of land that it stole from people who were paying their own taxes on that land and generating economic opportunities and tax dollars for the city going to equal out in the end? Oh yeah, it won't. Unless the government taxes the piss out of every man, woman, child, and kitten it can find."

If they take the land and sell it, they get what the land is worth and the new owner pays the same taxes.

Quote :

"Wait, so now you are saying their should be a profit cap for Walmart? Either that, or you are honestly suggesting that Walmart should NOT pay it's executives a competitive salary, thereby causing those executives to move overseas for decent job opportunities, thus stifling any competitive edge that American companies might ever have, and killing each and every American corporation. Is that what you want?"

If they move overseas I'm sure there will be someone waiting to replace them. The companies will still have a competitive edge because its not like profits will stop and domestic companies aren't in competition with non domestic companies. They can make all the profit they want overseas we just don't want our workers and poor consumers exploited. This should go for all companies. An $xbillion cap.

Quote :

"Then you ought to know that once people figured out what Disney was up to, the price of the surrounding land SKYROCKETED. You know, the very fucking thing I was alluding to..."

You alluded to Disney himself having trouble buying land. If I turbo-buy all the land today, price goes up tomorrow. Its not likely that the price would instantly go up with every purchase.

Quote :

"Not at all. BUT, since you were the one noting that there is a lot of crime in poor areas, it stands to reason that those poor people are the ones committing the crimes there, right? Thus, if we followed your ludicrous suggestion and spread the poor throughout the city, it would naturally follow that the crime committed by said poor people would be more distributed throughout the city."

Good, now we can't systematically give people in and around certain areas lower property values and punish poor children by forcing them to come up in an area filled with failing adults, failing education and high crime. Its all starting to ad up.

Quote :

"Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Nowhere did I say that only rich areas are protected by the police. Rather, I stated that it is more cost effective to heavily police crime-heavy areas. "

Yours are. that was referring more towards the educated part. Everyone knows schools are better in rich areas but you seem to be insinuating that they don't really need police outside of the poor areas and if the poor were spread out they would actually have to patrol entire cities and that wouldn't be cost effective. Well guess what? Poor people can get around anyway. We might as well use this as a reason to have better overall police and if things weren't so hopeless maybe the poor wouldn't need to commit crimes or maybe just maybe the drug crimes that make up a huge % of these crimes are actually being committed outside of the poor areas as well...

Quote :

"despite the fact that the higher you tax people, the less revenue you will generate. "

out of your ass

Quote :

" Well, if the poor would actually buy what they NEED, then Walmart would only sell that. But, the poor are dumb enough to buy tons of other shit instead of what they need, so Walmart will sell that stuff, too. What, Walmart is supposed to NOT make profits? Really, it sounds as if what you want is to have our corporations do things that will cause them to fail. You want piss-poor efficiency and effectiveness, basically."

Like I said, these people often have high levels of stress in their lives and then here come advertisers waving joyful products in their face and hey, they're down, they're looking for the quick fix. What do rich people do when they are sad? I don't think they go work harder, they eat, drink, travel and buy stuff. Its human nature and walmart and all these other big companies are exploiting that to make billions. They are supposed to make profits but they need to make reasonable profits so that they, thier workers, and their customers come out of each transaction better off, not just them and their executives. Bottom line is corperate America doesn't need to be making massive salaries. They can still make millions and have a fraction of their current salary.

Quote :

"Why not just stop spending money on useless shit like Iraq, military bases in Europe,"

Exactly, we don't need to spend 600 billion on defense.

7/24/2008 10:16:21 AM

What idiot buys land when the government will just turn around and confiscate it again?

Widespread confiscation is why land located in the third world is worthless. So stealling land to give to the poor will not help their situation as the land will be worthless when they get it.

7/24/2008 10:30:07 AM

Quote :

"Bottom line is corperate America doesn't need to be making massive salaries. "

This thinking is so sad. We really need to fix our public schools.

7/24/2008 10:37:50 AM

Quote :

"Exactly, we don't need to spend 600 billion on defense."

yeah if you want to fucking sit around and await being invaded or at the very least being bullied in international trade.

I have no problems with defense spending for legitimate programs needed to keep our country safe if shit hits the fan. There is a lot of fat though that i think needs to be cut. Do we really need air force bases in the UK? Iraq has turned into a bottomless pit.

7/24/2008 10:39:40 AM

Damn you're older than hooksaw??

7/24/2008 10:39:56 AM

Quote :

"What idiot buys land when the government will just turn around and confiscate it again? Widespread confiscation is why land located in the third world is worthless. So stealling land to give to the poor will not help their situation as the land will be worthless when they get it."

Nobody is suggesting widespread confiscation. Land would only be taken from people who have an unreasonable,excessive and unfair amount of it. Just a personal version of anti-trust laws. The people rebuying the land wouldn't have anything to worry about because they wouldn't already own an insane amount of it. This is basically just another small scale method of wealth redistribution that is necessary for capitalism to work.

Quote :

"We really need to fix our public schools."

Exactly, and that money has to come from somewhere.

Quote :

"yeah if you want to fucking sit around and await being invaded or at the very least being bullied in international trade. "

Well I have certified military strategists over in the other thread telling me that as long as you have a standing army, you won't be invaded. But really, we don't need all 5 oceans covered in ships, subs and global air reach to defend against invasion. Even a 300billion dollar budget would be killing a fly with a hammer. We should at least be at half of what we are now.

7/24/2008 1:43:10 PM

Quote :

" Well I have certified military strategists over in the other thread telling me that as long as you have a standing army, you won't be invaded. But really, we don't need all 5 oceans covered in ships, subs and global air reach to defend against invasion. Even a 300billion dollar budget would be killing a fly with a hammer. We should at least be at half of what we are now."

agreed.

7/24/2008 5:05:49 PM

Mark Anthony, I believe his name was, ordered the 5000 wealthiest Romans put to death so he could confiscate their estate and pay for mounting war costs.
If you ever try to impliment your scheme of canibalizing my fellow citizens then I will raise up an army against you.

7/24/2008 10:42:50 PM

Quote :

" Simple. Because of the economic benefits of lower tax rates. "

that, and fair's fair, whether or not it benefits ME.

i DO think that we should have the system set up so that the uber-rich don't effectively pay lower taxes due to most of it being dividends and LT capital gains (though i don't want to raise the div/LT cap gains taxes, at least up to a certain level).

7/25/2008 1:23:36 AM

this is all a debate/controversy that has existed since the DAWN of fucking civilization and monarchs started collecting taxes.

If you can find the perfect solution to create a maxima of social harmony and productivity you will probably get the noble peace prize. wars have been fought, revolutions started, and millions of lives lost over this single issue.

7/25/2008 2:19:46 AM

^^

Oh, you don't have to worry about that. LT capital gains rate only applies until AMT kicks in. Then the gains get upped to the normal income rates.

In reality higher capital gains rates will likely only hurt the lower- and middle-income taxpayers who don't pay AMT.

7/25/2008 2:40:16 AM

They need to fix AMT.

as I understand it (hell, does anyone really understand AMT?), the magic formula has not been changed since its inception, and it's affecting millions of middle class americans due to inflation.

I'm fairly certain it's going to hit me this year.

7/25/2008 11:56:10 AM

From what I have read the AMT is the perfect tax: it exempts the first $49k of income (married filling jointly) and a flat 26% tax rate on all income above that until $175k when it becomes a flat 28% tax rate. And the best part is that it disallows exemptions! Personally, I think they should get rid of the regular tax system and just keep the AMT! It is simply to calculate, and does away with the massive economic destruction being wrought by mortgage and other exemptions.

If we can get the tax to include payments in kind from employers (employer provided healthcare, company provided transportation, etc) then it would be absolutely the perfect tax regime!!!

7/25/2008 12:13:32 PM

^ everything i've heard the AMT causes people to pay more

7/25/2008 12:30:37 PM

^ That's not necessarily a problem, esp. when the rate there is relatively low compared to our peers.

But, I think the $49k exemption rate for couples is a bit on the low side, particularly if they have kids, and depending on which area of the country they're in. But, that's the problem with taxes, is that it's hard to find something "fair" that makes sense in every situation.

7/25/2008 12:37:02 PM

HUR, absolutely it makes people pay more, it does not allow what I believe to be unfair exemptions, such as interest paid on a mortgage. Why should I pay taxes on income I used to pay my rent but you don't need to pay taxes on income you used to pay your mortgage interest?

And 26% of peoples income is reasonable tax rate in my mind. I think the AMT marginal rate should be a little steeper than 26% to 28% at $175k, maybe 25% to 30%. But paying more is not a bad thing; afterall, the purpose of taxes is to collect revenue. That it does so without four pages of insanity is a good thing.

7/25/2008 12:44:23 PM

personally i do not enjoy paying taxes to fund welfare queens, bailing out bankrupted companies who just so happen to have friends in congress to save them, and funding Bush's war of aggression in Iraq.

7/25/2008 12:48:02 PM

Fine then, keep the AMT and cut the rate. Tada! Less taxation, same fairness!

7/25/2008 3:50:25 PM

Quote :

"Because capitalism causes a small few to make unimaginable amounts of money while the vast majority of population struggles. "

What you fail to understand is that, while the suppliers of capital may earn a higher percentage of the expanding pie, they are the reason the pie is even expanding at the rate that it is. Fruitless efforts to force an equal distribution by confiscating from one minority and giving to another jeopardize any expansion at all and thus the well-being of all participants.

One of the leading drivers of income inequality is the premium that is now paid to human capital. As the demand for higher-educated workers has increased much faster than supply, the premium on human capital has risen. This is not a bad thing as it provides an incentive for individual investment in human capital. The answer to a more equal distribution is not to confiscate more from high-earners and blindly re-allocate to low-earners, but to equip low-earners with the resources to compete for higher-paying jobs. The only way to do this is to provide and encourage investment in human capital.

For those on here who feel it necessary to tax higher-income earners more than they currently are, what would you personally do with the extra revenue? What program, in its current form, has proven so efficacious as to warrant its expansion? Where is the return on investment to maintain that 60 years of ever-expanding entitlements and blind wealth redistribution has proven to be so successful?

7/25/2008 11:04:15 PM

^ the returns are obvious. The entitlement programs have done precisely what they set out to do. They have forever changed the public's true vision of what America is. Its not really the land of the free and the home of the brave. Its the land of the coddled from the cradle to the grave. Of course there are exceptions, thankfully the productive part of society still chugs along on the vision of what this country is supposed to be; a land free of unnecessary government. However, Entitlements have encouraged the public to instead ask how can we make the government even bigger! This is actually their real purpose, to form entitlement addicts.

1. people are actually considering socialized medicine as a viable option for our "free" country.

2. politicians on both sides are reluctant to actually cut anything. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy of the entitlements have little to worry about there own jobs, no amount of mismanagement or outright fraud can shut down one of these programs. We don't even question if they are working or not, your question is moot. Why are you a racist? (paging nastoute)

3. no one seriously questions the returns because we have all been educated that when ever anything bad happens its the government's job to fix it.

Of course, most of the liberals on this board do not actually want to make the government powerful. They are well-intentioned, I have little doubt of this. But that doesn't change the fact that their precious entitlements are bankrupting this country in the long term.



[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : .]

7/26/2008 12:54:07 AM

Quote :

"Its not really the land of the free and the home of the brave. Its the land of the coddled from the cradle to the grave."

mathman.... more like poetryman

7/26/2008 1:06:47 AM

Quote :

"What you fail to understand is that, while the suppliers of capital may earn a higher percentage of the expanding pie, they are the reason the pie is even expanding at the rate that it is. Fruitless efforts to force an equal distribution by confiscating from one minority and giving to another jeopardize any expansion at all and thus the well-being of all participants. One of the leading drivers of income inequality is the premium that is now paid to human capital. As the demand for higher-educated workers has increased much faster than supply, the premium on human capital has risen. This is not a bad thing as it provides an incentive for individual investment in human capital. The answer to a more equal distribution is not to confiscate more from high-earners and blindly re-allocate to low-earners, but to equip low-earners with the resources to compete for higher-paying jobs. The only way to do this is to provide and encourage investment in human capital. For those on here who feel it necessary to tax higher-income earners more than they currently are, what would you personally do with the extra revenue? What program, in its current form, has proven so efficacious as to warrant its expansion? Where is the return on investment to maintain that 60 years of ever-expanding entitlements and blind wealth redistribution has proven to be so successful?"

i agree 100% with this in theory. My current problem though is when those who do excel to the forefront of society use their wealth and affluence in order to evade the tax code, "influence" political figures to pass legislation in their direct benefit even if its not in the best interest of society, and consolidate their marketshare in a particular industry so they can manipulate the supply and demand curve to which the smell of monopoly begins to fume.

mathman is right too. when it comes down to it i feel the governments role in the economy should be referee. provide a balance but they shouldn't be in the role of over regulation and forcibly participate in wealth redistribution. On one hand we can not have the scum/trash or just plain commoners starving on the street. Beyond increase in crime a unemployed desperate population of male youth is the cause of civil strife which at the worse leads to revolution as we've seen throughout history. This is horrible for any successful capitalist. On the other hand we can not simply provide free hand outs and have our gov't act as a nanny state. This merely leads to excuses and takes away motivation for your avg. citizen to excel. A common part of parenting is expecting your child to learn and appreciate the value of money. The same goes for society. If my parents bought me an expensive sports car, paid for a dank place to live, and took care of everything where would be my motivation to excel in life. the same holds true of the population as a whole. If lasheada can sit on her couch and have all her necessities paid for because we must "think of the children" were is the motiviation for her to work, as i pay to subsidize her four kids. Who will statistically be future welfare recipients.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 3:31 AM. Reason : l]

7/26/2008 3:23:56 AM