America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

So the harder you work, the richer you are?

I know many successful people who have busted their butt to get what they have. They worked 15-20 hours a day for years on end and it paid off for many of them when their business finally took off. As such, they were able to hire more people and their businesses continued to grow. Instead of being a burden on society, they worked hard and became a benefit to society by taking care of themselves and offering employment to others. Plus, if you count the company vehicles, maintenance, cleaning crews, gas, medical benefits, building rents, advertising, etc, etc, etc, they did more to aid society as a whole. Not only did they create jobs in their company, they created jobs in several other markets as well.

Personally, I don't think we should be penalizing them for being successful and creating jobs and lives for countless others - it doesn't pass the common sense test. I think they should be taxed at a reasonable rate. I believe they should be allowed to use whatever deductions available. If we tax them too much, they will lose the desire to produce and will either sell or close the company down. We wouldn't have tax problems if the government lived within its means and didn't continue to grow.

Me too!

The questions are, what is a reasonable rate and would that business have been possible without the infrastructure and stability that the tax dollars paid were able to provide. The first is determined by our country's values, as the thread suggests, and the second answer is more than likely not, but how much stability, protection and infrastructure from 'government' is needed for the country so thrive.

Both of these things are what are argued over constantly. And it is often said government is by the people and for the people, and I agree with that wholeheartedly, that's why I don't necessarily hate government, I would rather we make sure those in government understand that the government is us and your control is only temporary.

And here it comes, the left's justification for theft. Since income is unlimited, confiscating income to hand to the lazy is okay. Since GPAs are limited to 4.0 if course it would be wrong to redistribue that, and the liberal students who are against the idea are in no way hypocritical.

I'm not justifying anything. I merely said that this example of why income redistribution is wrong is extremely flawed.

And yet the illiberal lefties just can't comprehend why socialism fails.

I don't want my tax dollars going to the Iraq war. Therefore my money is being stolen from me in order to fund a war I do not support.

And here is a more realistic example...

You need a 2.0 GPA to pass, a 4.0 to pass with colors. 2% of the students get a GPA over 500. 5% of students get a GPA over 100. Now you ask if they want to share some of their GPA. Maybe the answer would be different, maybe not... either way it still a incredibly invalid example because the people with 1.0 GPA are not going to go homeless or die of starvation. And many people living below the poverty line are not lazy or stupid.

im not saying that the harder you work at digging ditches, the richer you get. But speaking in general, if you work hard, you are rewarded with a decent paycheck that you can usually support your family and enjoy some hobbies, provided you are responsible and dont have several children.

However, the principle is still the same. Taxing the wealthy more than the middle class doesnt make sense IMO. Why cant it just be a simple flat rate across the board? get rid of rules,exemptions, everything. Cost savings from the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of IRS workers should be enough to take a small chip out of the deficit right?

So if the outcomes are disparate enough, theft is okay...got it.

i disagree. in order to contribute and take part in society/government, you should be paying taxes. we need government as much as government needs us but government needs responsible citizens who recognize their roles in life and are willing to contribute for the benefits they receive such as driving on nice roads (mostly), being able to go grocery shopping without worrying about a suicide bomber or the government shooting down people who protest. These are all things US citizens enjoy and must pay for.

Someone making 15k a year has drastically lower expenses than you or I. 5% is what it is. what happens if they get a speeding ticket? a $150 ticket is 12% of their monthly income! are they exempt from it?

Um, yes... and they are probably barely making ends meet. They don't pay less for the essentials just because they are poor. They still have to afford a place to live, food, clothing, etc...

If a millionaire gets a $150 ticket, does it really discourage them from speeding?

robertknyc wrote:
So if the outcomes are disparate enough, theft is okay...got it.



At least you admit it's theft, though why you think it's okay is beyond me. And I must laugh at the line that the rich decide how much to give everyone else. As if the only way medium-to-low-income people can get money is if it is "given" to them by the rich. You are way out of touch with the concept of freedom and how the world works.

you are assuming that they are barely making ends meet. In college during my initiation, we had to give away all the food we brought to survive during our time. we ended up giving away all of our food to a "poor" family. I thought it rather ironic as i gave my food to this 300+lb lady with her 8 kids running around the house while she sat there barely able to get out of her recliner in front of a new 50" plasma...... something doesnt add up about this.

another counter point is that, they dont have the same expenses for housing, utilities or food you and i do. they dont have a fat mortgage payment, huge HVAC and lawn sprinklers or eat nice food/expensive restaurants. dont have fancy iphones and expensive cell plans, cable, internet etc. you have to live within your means. whether you are making $15000, 150,000 or 1,500,000.

i believe that last flat tax proposal i saw was arond 17% and exempted those making less than $40 or $45k. i searched a few sites and the IRS employs approximately 100,000-125,000 people. The code is longer than several bibles and has been rewritten more times than bart simpson has had detention.

its not just welfare though, its the HUD housing, free cell phones, utility assistance, etc. the debit cards really piss me off. maybe its because it is a larger proportion of the population in the midsouth than surrounding states but everytime, EVERYeffingTIME im at the register (kroger, schnucks, walmart etc) i always see someone paying with their damn EBT card then ringing up their beer seperately. plus they are ususally grossly overweight (in their defense, our system and options do not support buying healthy food) but when you dont work and just sit around all day, i doubt they are doing exercises in the am before they watch their tv shows. last time, the guy in front of me is talking to his friend how he was at the dogtrack and took a grand to gamble, won more money etc. then he whips out that good ole government welfare card to pay for his stuff. i almost lost it !

I couldn't get through the whole thread because the insanity from the left is so disturbing.

I didn't watch the video, but I get the gist of it.

Although you can find flaws with the suggestion that GPA is not the same as wealth, the point isn't to make this EXACTLY the same, simply to demonstrate that it's unfair to take from those who earn something simply because others can't, won't, or are otherwise unable to get it themselves.

Remeber, the reality of this is that nobody is claiming we shouldn't pay any taxes. Or that all social programs need to end.
Reality says that these things are necessary and good when implemented correctly and not abused. Abused by those receiving and those distributing for political gain.

So the video was to prove that these supposed bleeding hearts are all well-intentioned when it comes to spending other peoples money, but keep your filthy hands off their own prized possession that they worked hard for. Because THAT is different.

But instead of spirited debate or logical discussion, all we get is a dissertation on how GPA differes from wealth.
Bravo.

Flat SALES tax!

you mean till the Wifey's money runs out...

lol !!


wheel,

My wifey don't work Wheel. Don't need her to. Am talking about how the middle class is working for wages that are below what they earned in late 70's. Many have lost homes, cars and etc. While the rich buy up the houses for less than a third of what the houses cost 6 years ago. That's okay though, I'm sure they are lazy and don't deserve to own their own homes, or have health insurance etc. To bad you righties don't understand that if one can't make a decent wage, they will be a burden to all at some point.

DWD ,

I was talking about my old lady...
Luckily we both do ok... (actually luck has little to do with it)

The reason houses cost less now is people who should never have had a mortgage got one and did'nt pay up..
It's not the "Rich folks" fault.
Some people should be renters and ride the Bus,
After all,Landlords and Bus drivers deserve to make a living too...

Trickle Down and such..

wheel,,

No, the more successful you are, the more you owe to those who are less successful.

Come on man, you know that you owe all those people on whose back you've achieved all your success. You couldn't have achieved anything without taking advantage of all those poor folks.

Where is that sarcasm button?

I'm not against a safey net for those truly in need.After all I'm not a Barbarian.But,perpetual generational welfare has done tremendous harm to the minorities here. Welfare is like narcotics.They are good for sick people until they are healed.After that if use is continued it becomes an addiction.

As far as the Tax code,
I believe that unless one is truly destitute they should pay income tax (skin in the game and all).If all paid then all would pay less.

A Flat might be a solution...


wheel,,

The official Poverty threshold 2010

2009/2010 HHS Poverty Guidelines
For all states (except Alaska and Hawaii) and for the District of Columbia

Size of family
unit 100
Percent
of Poverty 110
Percent
of Poverty 125
Percent
of Poverty 150
Percent
of Poverty 175
Percent
of Poverty 185
Percent
of Poverty 200
Percent
of Poverty
1 $10,830 $11,913 $13,538 $16,245 $18,953 $20,036 $21,660
2 $14,570 $16,027 $18,213 $21,855 $25,498 $26,955 $29,140
3 $18,310 $20,141 $22,888 $27,465 $32,043 $33,874 $36,620
4 $22,050 $24,255 $27,563 $33,075 $38,588 $40,793 $44,100
5 $25,790 $28,369 $32,238 $38,685 $45,133 $47,712 $51,580
6 $29,530 $32,483 $36,913 $44,295 $51,678 $54,631 $59,060
7 $33,270 $36,597 $41,588 $49,905 $58,223 $61,550 $66,540
8 $37,010 $40,711 $46,263 $55,515 $64,768 $68,469 $74,020


so,
a family of 4 making at 150 % of Poverty should pay some Fed Incom Tax..

wheel,