Tax the Rich!

[TruthSeeker]

GenSeneca, what we have here is a "failure to communicate". Pepper doesn't understand basic economics, and is too hard-headed to admit it.

I would settle for Pepper (and all other leftists in this forum) providing legitimate LINKS to support their wild accusations and false statements, or in many cases, providing any links AT ALL.

Using Time Magazine or the New York Times or MSNBC or The Huffington Post or Wikepedia or one of the George Soros-financed left wing websites as their "objective" sources of facts, is like using "Pravda" as an objective source to find out what was going on in the USSR during the Cold War.

 

[Pepper]

Then why are you complaining that companies are not "cutting loose and creating jobs"?

Because I'd like to see more jobs created. I really thought your explanation was going to be more in depth.

 

[GenSeneca]

Because I'd like to see more jobs created.

Blaming the private sector for lack of job creation while claiming that it's government's responsibility to create jobs during an economic downturn leads to congative dissonance.

I really thought your explanation was going to be more in depth.

It's not complicated enough to warrant any more depth. How much experience do you have with running a business anyway?

 

[Pepper]

Fair - marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.​

I guess the "adult's version" of fair is marked by partiality, dishonesty, self-interest, prejudice and favoritism.

The adult's version is marked by acknowledgment of reality.

The idea that it's fair to have everyone pay the same percentage of their income in income taxes ignores reality. The reality that it's easier to pay taxes when you're rich, and the reality that your proposal just wouldn't pay the bills.

For a person making minimum wage, you're taking food out of their mouths and clothing off of their back with a high rate of taxes. That's not the case for an upper middle class or rich person.

Further, the amount that we get from this country varies considerably, based on our income. In more affluent neighborhoods, there are better schools, better infrastructure, and greater safety. There's also more access to politicians. Pols listen to middle class people better than they listen to poor people, and rich people have wonderful access to our elected leaders.

Your idea is pure self-interest. Not fairness. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Pepper]

Blaming the private sector for lack of job creation while claiming that it's government's responsibility to create jobs during an economic downturn leads to congative dissonance.


It's not complicated enough to warrant any more depth. How much experience do you have with running a business anyway?

Then there's no real excuse for this:

Do you understand how the fractional reserve banking system works?

You're just showing off.

I don't have experience running a business.

Either the private sector is deliberately holding back, or the private sector is unable to create jobs, and government needs to step in with a works program.

 

[GenSeneca]

The adult's version is marked by acknowledgment of reality.

I'm curious to know what dictionary you have that defines "fair" in the same words that "unfair" is defined in my dictionary.

The idea that it's fair to have everyone pay the same percentage of their income in income taxes ignores reality.

It would be the definition of fair. Just to pick a number, 10% is 10%, everyone pays 10%, therefore it's fair. Look again at the actual definition of "fair" if you believe I'm in error.

The reality that it's easier to pay taxes when you're rich, and the reality that your proposal just wouldn't pay the bills.

Paying 10% on $10,000 is $1,000... It's $10,000 on an income of $100,000. The people in the highest income brackets would still pay the most in taxes but because everyone had to pay the same percentage, the tax code would actually be fair.

For a person making minimum wage, you're taking food out of their mouths and clothing off of their back with a high rate of taxes. That's not the case for an upper middle class or rich person.

Isn't the same true for payroll and sales taxes? Everyone has to pay those, no exceptions. Income tax should be designed the same way, everyone pays the same %.

Further, the amount that we get from this country varies considerably, based on our income.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Using the pronoun "we" without a noun to specify the group you're referencing makes it unclear. Also, it's not clear whether you're referring to the "amount" received as being tax revenue to the government or social assistance funds from the government.

In more affluent neighborhoods, there are better schools, better infrastructure, and greater safety.

I'm sure you consider it purely coincidental that the tax base in those neighborhoods is nearly 100% compared to the blighted neighborhoods where the overwhelming majority of people are exempt from much of the taxation that pays for schools, infrastructure, and public safety.

There's also more access to politicians. Pols listen to middle class people better than they listen to poor people, and rich people have wonderful access to our elected leaders.

If the "poor" don't have a voice, then why do the bottom 50% of tax payers chip in less than 3% of the total bill while consuming over 90% of the social welfare benefits? Seems if anyone has a good deal, it's the people who are riding in the cart, not the people being forced to pull the cart.

Your idea is pure self-interest.

Of course it is... What does that make your idea? Are you an altruist?

Not fairness.

According to the dictionary definition of "fair", my proposal is fair.

Don't be ridiculous.

I know someone on this forum understands the reference...

 

[Pepper]

I'm curious to know what dictionary you have that defines "fair" in the same words that "unfair" is defined in my dictionary.

Oh, please. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I raised two kids. One of them needed braces. The other did not. I spent more on his dental care! Oh, my, how unfair!

It would be the definition of fair. Just to pick a number, 10% is 10%, everyone pays 10%, therefore it's fair. Look again at the actual definition of "fair" if you believe I'm in error.

Paying 10% on $10,000 is $1,000... It's $10,000 on an income of $100,000. The people in the highest income brackets would still pay the most in taxes but because everyone had to pay the same percentage, the tax code would actually be fair.

I would be a short-sighted, self-serving person's definition of fair.

Again, you're taking money for food from one family, and taking money for pet vacations from another.

Isn't the same true for payroll and sales taxes? Everyone has to pay those, no exceptions. Income tax should be designed the same way, everyone pays the same %.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Using the pronoun "we" without a noun to specify the group you're referencing makes it unclear. Also, it's not clear whether you're referring to the "amount" received as being tax revenue to the government or social assistance funds from the government.

I get a lot more from the government than a person living in a blighted neighborhood with a crappy school. My neighborhood is safer, my kid's school's were better. I have more sidewalks.

I'm sure you consider it purely coincidental that the tax base in those neighborhoods is nearly 100% compared to the blighted neighborhoods where the overwhelming majority of people are exempt from much of the taxation that pays for schools, infrastructure, and public safety.

No, I consider it a part of our wealth mal-distribution.

If the "poor" don't have a voice, then why do the bottom 50% of tax payers chip in less than 3% of the total bill while consuming over 90% of the social welfare benefits? Seems if anyone has a good deal, it's the people who are riding in the cart, not the people being forced to pull the cart.

Why put it in quotes? You don't think that there are really poor people, so you put quotation marks around the word like you would "magic elves"?

Yes, poor people get the benefit of programs designed for the poor. What is your point?

Surely you can't believe that people getting these piddling benefits are doing better than the wealthy? This makes the WSJ's "lucky duckies" comment seem coherent.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Define "poor". Then define "rich". Nobody seems to be able to do that. Perhaps because there isn't an all-encompassing definition for either one?

Rewarding the "poor" and punishing the "rich" is a great definition of "class warfare".

 

[GenSeneca]

Pepper,

You seem to have overlooked a couple things in my last post that I would appreciate you addressing:

1. The "poor" are forced to pay sales and payroll taxes, as well as some other taxes and fees. Since the bottom 47% are exempt from income taxes, shouldn't they also be exempt from paying all other forms of taxation as well? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do?

2. Since you consider my support for a flat tax on income to be selfish, do you consider your support of the progressive tax on income to be altruistic?

And I put the words like "poor" and "rich" in quotes because they are clearly relative terms, like your definitions of "fair" and "reality".

 

[Dr.Who]

Here's a video of Tim Pawlenty trying to make his case for yet more tax cuts for the rich.
.

I assume you are alluding to the Bush tax cuts fore the rich which incidentally helped the rich less than they helped everyone else.

 

[Dr.Who]

Isn't there something wrong when so many earn so little that they are exempt from income tax? We have a vast wealth disparity in this nation.

There is a vast wealth disparity in every country including those that have highly progressive tax systems - apparently taxing the rich does not change wealth disparities.

What if we tried incentives for working? Maybe a guy who wants to push an ice cream cart in the park shouldn't be regulated into not being able to do it.

 

[Pepper]

Pepper,

You seem to have overlooked a couple things in my last post that I would appreciate you addressing:

1. The "poor" are forced to pay sales and payroll taxes, as well as some other taxes and fees. Since the bottom 47% are exempt from income taxes, shouldn't they also be exempt from paying all other forms of taxation as well? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing to do?

2. Since you consider my support for a flat tax on income to be selfish, do you consider your support of the progressive tax on income to be altruistic?

And I put the words like "poor" and "rich" in quotes because they are clearly relative terms, like your definitions of "fair" and "reality".

As a society, we have to work out what we believe is most fair to those with more and less income. As the taxes you mention are regressive, a case can be made for their unfairness. That's why some states rely on income taxes rather than consumption taxes.

I consider my support for a progressive tax to be justified. As in justice. Imperfect, human attempts to create a more just society.

I assume you are alluding to the Bush tax cuts fore the rich which incidentally helped the rich less than they helped everyone else.

No. He's proposing further taxes cuts. The words "yet more" are the tip off that I don't mean the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure where you get your information about the Bush tax cuts helping the rich less than everyone else.

There is a vast wealth disparity in every country including those that have highly progressive tax systems - apparently taxing the rich does not change wealth disparities.

What if we tried incentives for working? Maybe a guy who wants to push an ice cream cart in the park shouldn't be regulated into not being able to do it.

Actually, the US has a high degree of wealth disparity that has increased over the last decade. Again, I'm not sure where you get your information

 

[GenSeneca]

As a society, we have to work out what we believe is most fair to those with more and less income.

If you were trying to do so "as a society", i.e. based on volitional consent, then I'd have no objections. Since you're using the government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce people into supporting collectivist policies, I do have objections.

As the taxes you mention are regressive, a case can be made for their unfairness.

I see... So you think it's "fair" for some to benefit at the expense of all others.

That's why some states rely on income taxes rather than consumption taxes.

Would you like to compare the fiscal situation of the states with income taxes to those without?

I consider my support for a progressive tax to be justified. As in justice. Imperfect, human attempts to create a more just society.

Do you consider yourself a supporter of Social Justice?

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.
​

Actually, the US has a high degree of wealth disparity

Why do you see that as a problem that needs correcting?

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, please. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Yes, I do know what you're talking about... You want policies that discriminate against people of means while benefiting people of needs.

I would be a short-sighted, self-serving person's definition of fair.

Or the actual dictionary definition... Whichever...

Again, you're taking money for food from one family, and taking money for pet vacations from another.

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

The "rich" people you think are being nailed by the progressive tax, make most, if not all, of their income through capital gains. That's how Buffet was able to say he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Your Progressive tax is punishing her, not him. His capital gains rate is 15%, her Progressive rate was in the 20's.

BTW, why don't supporters of the Progressive Tax ever push to make the Capital Gains Tax Progressive? Have you ever wondered why none of the "TAX THE RICH!" Leftist politicians have even suggested making the Capital Gains Tax Progressive?

I get a lot more from the government than a person living in a blighted neighborhood with a crappy school. My neighborhood is safer, my kid's school's were better. I have more sidewalks.

You do realize you didn't actually address my point, right?

No, I consider it a part of our wealth mal-distribution.

I don't see why having a "wealth gap" is a problem, no matter how wide it may be. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Yes, poor people get the benefit of programs designed for the poor. What is your point?

All the benefits, none of the responsibility. The welfare state is doomed to failure but you'd never be convinced of that, not even after the whole thing comes crashing down around you.

Surely you can't believe that people getting these piddling benefits are doing better than the wealthy?

I didn't say they were doing better, I said they had the better deal. The "poor" get all the services without having to pay a dime and all we ever hear is how it's too little. The "rich" pay the lions share of the bill while being demonized by people like you for not paying their "fair share".

I like that! Even has "Galt" on the bucket...

I really am withholding my productivity but that's another story.

 

[Pepper]

If you were trying to do so "as a society", i.e. based on volitional consent, then I'd have no objections. Since you're using the government's monopoly on the legal use of force to coerce people into supporting collectivist policies, I do have objections.

Baloney. It's being done as a society, though our democratic process.

I see... So you think it's "fair" for some to benefit at the expense of all others

You are a bit incoherent here.

Would you like to compare the fiscal situation of the states with income taxes to those without?

Feel free.

Do you consider yourself a supporter of Social Justice?

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.
​

Why do you see that as a problem that needs correcting?

Yes, I am. Your question is unclear.

Yes, I do know what you're talking about... You want policies that discriminate against people of means while benefiting people of needs.

While you support policies that make sure that the haves have ever more.

Or the actual dictionary definition... Whichever...

No, I covered it the first time. A child like view of fairness. Self-serving, unable to grasp anything outside of the self and the immediate needs and desires of the self. An excess of id. Adult sociopaths.

Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

That is nonsense. I made a factual statement. You are talking about necessities for one family and luxuries for another. No emotion. Simple fact.

The "rich" people you think are being nailed by the progressive tax, make most, if not all, of their income through capital gains. That's how Buffet was able to say he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Your Progressive tax is punishing her, not him. His capital gains rate is 15%, her Progressive rate was in the 20's.

BTW, why don't supporters of the Progressive Tax ever push to make the Capital Gains Tax Progressive? Have you ever wondered why none of the "TAX THE RICH!" Leftist politicians have even suggested making the Capital Gains Tax Progressive?

I'm perfectly open to the suggestion. Make your case.

You do realize you didn't actually address my point, right?

Oh, but I did. I addressed it directly. You claim we all benefit equally from America's resources, and you are mistaken.

I don't see why having a "wealth gap" is a problem, no matter how wide it may be. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Income inequality leads to other inequalities. The more the wealth disparity, the less ability those born at the bottom have to move up, or even to seek justice.

All the benefits, none of the responsibility. The welfare state is doomed to failure but you'd never be convinced of that, not even after the whole thing comes crashing down around you.

Your Galtian paradise is a fantasy, and preserving it leads to your inability to grasp the nuances of what others are saying.

I didn't say they were doing better, I said they had the better deal. The "poor" get all the services without having to pay a dime and all we ever hear is how it's too little. The "rich" pay the lions share of the bill while being demonized by people like you for not paying their "fair share".

Then you're really not all that bright a human being. There's nothing to do but laugh at someone who actually believes such idiocy. Please, swap places. Go for it. Should be fun to watch.

I like that! Even has "Galt" on the bucket...

I really am withholding my productivity but that's another story.

Yes, it does have Galt on the side. He's really hurting us, isn't he?