Taxes

Lordy, you and your capitalist ideas. You speak of one thing and contradicts another. Fair you said; living under the capitalist government all your life and you still do not realize that the word Fair does not apply. Truely capitalism is a great form of government; but it has flaws of its own. To maintain a tip-top capitalism, the government needs to impose the idea of progressive taxation. Think of it this way, an automatic stabilizer. Suppose fairness applies, and that progressive taxation is no more. Now suppose that, for whatever reason, business activity suddenly starts to slow down. Some workers are laid off, and must change to jobs that pay less. Taxes are still paid and at the same rate as before. As a result, disposable income does fall by the same percentage as before-tax income. In other words, the individuals does feel the pinch of recession much more than they would have if progressive taxation applies. With the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer; your ideal of capitalism is crumbing. With people working in a job with less money, they are less willing to spend it. Demands for goods and services will decrease. This will result in more unemployment.
Here is another knock in the head; you spoke of socialism with great contempt. I just want to point out some of its good quality concerning the rich and poor gap.
"True socialism's features include the workers right, as a class, to
control the means of production; by economic planning instead of
war-like competition. Socialism is a negation of capitalism; a
qualitative leap from a society that have the means to give everyone a true vote, that have the capital to give everyone a life without poverty, to a society that in deed does these things."Try to be more open minded on things. Friendly notice from a friendly guy.

quote:

---

With people working in a job with less money, they are less willing to spend it. Demands for goods and services will decrease. This will result in more unemployment.

---

The above is untrue. People incapable of maintaining a budget spend money regardless of their net worth. The willingness is still there. With capitalism a person is able to create more wealth by hard work. Whether it be by selling junk mail advertisements, running a coffee shop or publishing a pornography magazine. No such clause exists with socialism.

quote:

---

Here is another knock in the head; you spoke of socialism with great contempt. I just want to point out some of its good quality concerning the rich and poor gap.
"True socialism's features include the workers right, as a class, to
control the means of production; by economic planning instead of
war-like competition. Socialism is a negation of capitalism; a
qualitative leap from a society that have the means to give everyone a true vote, that have the capital to give everyone a life without poverty, to a society that in deed does these things."

---

Socialism is synonymous with poverty. Can you cite one example of a Socialist state without poverty? True Socialism is not achievable just as true Capitalism isn't. Capitalism is the better of the two models.Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Socialism is great if you are one of the select few in power.

quote:

---

Winston:
The question I am asking is: Is it fair? should those who are wealthy pay more because they have worked hard and achieved their social status?

---

While there are people that 'worked hard' and became wealthy on their own accord, I am more interested in the likes of Steve Forbes, who attained their 'status' by virtue of being born. Tennis lessons and private tutors are not exactly what I consider 'working hard' to achieve wealth.

quote:

---

If we base our taxes on our level of success i believe we are moving towards a more socialist state. Why should the wealthy be forced to pay for the needs of the poorer?

---

"Level of success"? What are you - using the Limbaugh list of conservatively correct phrases?
Why shouldn't the wealthier be willing to pair their fair share?

quote:

---

Capitalism is what this country was based on and self-sufficiency and bettering one's self through hard work.

---

It was? Can you point it oout to me wherein, say, I can read about that in the constitution?
It is easy to say that if you just 'work hard' you can become wealthy. But that is just plain bullshit. More often than not, it takes connections. Nepotism. Old Boy network. Family business. If this 'hard work = wealth' schtick had as much merit as the right wants the poor to believe, they would not trot out the same 2 or 3 'examples' every time it comes up - they should have THOUSANDS of such examples.Don't get me wrong - I detest those slugs that live generation to generation on welfare. But all poor folks are not lazy slugs. many work thier butts off and still remain at the bottom of the totem pole.How many of these 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' right-wingers have actually done that?

quote:

---

What is made? the issue of having enough money to live on or to live in luxury is irrelevent.

---

LOL! that is hardly irrelevant! [/quote]They have worked to earn their money and the fact is is that it is still their money. [/quote]Fine. Let's all just live to make money. No taxes at all.Goodbye National Defense. Goodbye highways.Goodbye research and development. Hello child labor.Do you really think that Ken Lay 'earned' his money? And that it was really 'his'?

quote:

---

Regardless the amount, the percentage takes huge chunks out of their income. If they do a job that earns their income, why should they have to pay the majority of the taxes.

---

And a smaller percentage still takes a huge chunk of the poor's income.
The wealthy are coddled enough in this country.Think French Revolution...So - you never did tell me what part of jdean's gibbersih I didn't reply to. Guess you were just back-patting?

quote:

---

While there are people that 'worked hard' and became wealthy on their own accord, I am more interested in the likes of Steve Forbes, who attained their 'status' by virtue of being born. Tennis lessons and private tutors are not exactly what I consider 'working hard' to achieve wealth.

---

I suppose we should analyze everybody and how they got their money and then tax them... It is his (Steve Forbes) parents right and gift to pass on the fruits of their hard work to their children. Would you say that we should just take everything from everyone at birth, put them in school and see how they do?

quote:

---

"Level of success"? What are you - using the Limbaugh list of conservatively correct phrases?
Why shouldn't the wealthier be willing to pair their fair share?

---

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh... I don't think we get it down here. It might be on a lesser AM channel.
Fair n. (Im using the 6th definition btw the others aren't appropriate)Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
Just to all parties; equitableEQUITABLE... Im just saying do a 5 - 20 % progression in taxes or even the abolishment of a income tax and the creation of a higher tax on purchased goods. I'll have to do more research on the goods tax though.What is your definition of fair? after taxes everyone should have the same amount of expendable income? The wealthy already pay more than their fair share.

quote:

---

It was? Can you point it oout to me wherein, say, I can read about that in the constitution?

---

Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I believe earlier proponents of liberty used the term Life Liberty and Property or something to that effect. I believe persuit of happiness implies doing anything under the law that can increase your wealth and allow you to purchase goods which can make you happy.It may or may not be specifically stated in the constitution. However, During the time of the American Revolution, great thinkers such as voltaire, adam smith, and montesceiu (spelling ?) inspired the formation of our three legislative bodies as well as our declaration and our constitution. It wasn't based on socialism in any case._____________________________________________________________________
More often than not, it takes connections.
__________________________________________________________________Sometimes it does, but are you saying it is impossible? No one said its easy to get to the top. But I suppose everyone should get paid the same regardless of their work.[This message has been edited by Winston Smith Asriel, 03-02-2003]

quote:

---

Fine. Let's all just live to make money. No taxes at all.

---

Taxes are necessary but should the brunt of the cost be put upon the smallest minority?

quote:

---

Goodbye National Defense.

---

We already spend crazy amounts of money on national defense. Read Gore Vidal's " letter to be delivered"

quote:

---

Do you really think that Ken Lay 'earned' his money? And that it was really 'his'?

---

He was a corrupt Ceo and does not represent everyone Just like not all the poor are welfare leeches.

quote:

---

The wealthy are coddled enough in this country.

---

how are they coddled?[This message has been edited by Winston Smith Asriel, 03-03-2003]

oh sorry i didn't continue with the remarks on jdean. My fault.

--Winston, I've noticed your response style in using many "_" characters (up to about 80 in some cases) to separate your comments from others text.--Have you considered using the UBB quote function, or the

---

html tag as an alternative? The UBB code quote function can be used as follows:Your Text HereReplace < and > with [ and ]--Edit - Noticing that this is the FFA forum, this post was not meant as for giving any sort of warning or opposition, but as a suggestion.--AdminTC[This message has been edited by AdminTC, 03-02-2003][This message has been edited by AdminTC, 03-02-2003]

If I could put a little more emphasis on AdminTC's request about use of lines of dashes or underscores, please note that disk space is at a premium. Two lines of divider characters are around 140 to 160 bytes, while the [qs] style quote is around 100 bytes and the [quote] style quote is around 115 bytes. Two

---

dividers are only 8 bytes. The savings add up after a while.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-02-2003]

ill fix it. thanx

quote:

---

quote:

---

While there are people that 'worked hard' and became wealthy on their own accord, I am more interested in the likes of Steve Forbes, who attained their 'status' by virtue of being born. Tennis lessons and private tutors are not exactly what I consider 'working hard' to achieve wealth.

---

​

I suppose we should analyze everybody and how they got their money and then tax them... It is his (Steve Forbes) parents right and gift to pass on the fruits of their hard work to their children.

---

It is erroneous to equate wealth with hard work. Which was my point. Not all wealthy people worked hard ot get it.

quote:

---

Would you say that we should just take everything from everyone at birth, put them in school and see how they do?

---

No - what would have induced you to reach such a silly conclusion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Level of success"? What are you - using the Limbaugh list of conservatively correct phrases?
Why shouldn't the wealthier be willing to pair their fair share?

---

Fair n. (Im using the 6th definition btw the others aren't appropriate)

​

Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
Just to all parties; equitable

​

EQUITABLE... Im just saying do a 5 - 20 % progression in taxes or even the abolishment of a income tax and the creation of a higher tax on purchased goods. I'll have to do more research on the goods tax though.

​

What is your definition of fair? after taxes everyone should have the same amount of expendable income? The wealthy already pay more than their fair share.

---

I should have thought that by now it would be pretty obvious - Fair would be that there is an equal or equivalent impact on all involved.
10% of the income of a person living paycheck to paycheck has a much greater impact on their life than does 10% of the paycheck of someone making $150,000 (or much more).
I would hope that that much is obvious.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It was? Can you point it oout to me wherein, say, I can read about that in the constitution?

---

​

Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I believe earlier proponents of liberty used the term Life Liberty and Property or something to that effect. I believe persuit of happiness implies doing anything under the law that can increase your wealth and allow you to purchase goods which can make you happy.

---

I see. Not quite what you had implied before. So you equate wealth with happiness?

quote:

---

It may or may not be specifically stated in the constitution. However, During the time of the American Revolution, great thinkers such as voltaire, adam smith, and montesceiu (spelling ?) inspired the formation of our three legislative bodies as well as our declaration and our constitution. It wasn't based on socialism in any case.

---

Did socialism exist when the Constitution was written?

quote:

---

quote:

---

_
More often than not, it takes connections.

---

​

Sometimes it does, but are you saying it is impossible? No one said its easy to get to the top. But I suppose everyone should get paid the same regardless of their work.

---

More silly conclusion jumping. Personally, I think that manual laborers deserve to make more than the pencil-pushers in the offices. But what do I know...

quote:

---

It is erroneous to equate wealth with hard work. Which was my point. Not all wealthy people worked hard ot get it.

---

Yes, but not all wealthy people didn't work hard. This is why i asked the question should we take everything from someone at birth.

quote:

---

I should have thought that by now it would be pretty obvious - Fair would be that there is an equal or equivalent impact on all involved.
10% of the income of a person living paycheck to paycheck has a much greater impact on their life than does 10% of the paycheck of someone making $150,000 (or much more).
I would hope that that much is obvious

---

That is obvious and I agree that SOME progressive taxation is necessary but 50% is very unreasonable. Listen, what would be an accepted percentage? many pay no taxes at all.

quote:

---

I see. Not quite what you had implied before. So you equate wealth with happiness?

---

Yep. I would be happier in a porsche than a pinto. look, some things money can't buy. But a summer home and a nice car can be enjoyable.

quote:

---

More silly conclusion jumping. Personally, I think that manual laborers deserve to make more than the pencil-pushers in the offices. But what do I know...

---

Not everyone can do advanced mathematics. Everyone can shovel dirt. Supply and demand. However, even the construction worker can move up the ranks. If he works hard and gets noticed, then perhaps he will be put into a higher position.[This message has been edited by Winston Smith Asriel, 03-03-2003]

quote:

---

Think French Revolution...

---

I don't understand, please elaborate. I am not as old as you and may not know what you are referring to.

quote:

---

We already spend crazy amounts of money on national defense. Read Gore Vidal's " letter to be delivered"

---

I would like to point out that it is necessary to reduce spending as well as the role government plays in our lives. I believe in self-sufficiency. If the gov't lowers spending (which I doubt) then it will be possible to instate a more fair tax system. I believe our tax dollars should go to pay for things that will benefit us, not the bum on the corner who dropped out of high school.[This message has been edited by Winston Smith Asriel, 03-03-2003]

quote:

---

The question I am asking is: Is it fair? should those who are wealthy pay more because they have worked hard and achieved their social status?

---

Most rich people aren't rich because they work hard. Most rich people get that way because they inherit a lot of money and assets.Even the person who does get a good job and acheive a lot of earning power probably had a great deal of social and government assistance.

quote:

---

If we base our taxes on our level of success i believe we are moving towards a more socialist state. Why should the wealthy be forced to pay for the needs of the poorer?

---

See, this is the great lie the conservative politicians have so skillfully perpetrated upon the American public...Mostly, the wealthy are "forced" to pay for the needs of the elderly (Medicare and Social Security), the military (Defense), and Corporate Welfare.The amount of our taxes that goes to poor people (welfare) is about 2% of the total budget.

quote:

---

Capitalism is what this country was based on and self-sufficiency and bettering one's self through hard work.

---

Unfettered capitalism leads to worker exploitation and corporate greed, as evidenced by Enron and Worldcom recently.Another myth is that hard work is all you need to make it to the top in this country.You also need a lot of connections, as our current president is evidence of.

quote:

---

That is obvious and I agree that SOME progressive taxation is necessary but 50% is very unreasonable. Listen, what would be an accepted percentage? many pay no taxes at all.

---

Ask yourself this:Would I want to be making $150,000 a year and have 50% of it taken away in taxes, or would I want to be making just over $10,000 a year and have none of it taken away?(To pay zero taxes, that's how little you make in a year)That leaves you with $75,000 or $10,000.Take your pick.I should also add that the person not paying taxes probably doesn't have insurance of any kind, so they are paying out of pocket for all of their medical and dental and optical, etc.The $10,000 works out to $820 per month to live on for rent/house payment, food, medical, dental, etc.The $75,000 works out to $6,250/month to live on.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2003]