The 'Tax Cut, For or Against' thread

[Jon Miller]

I would prefer a tax increase to 100%

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wouldn't .

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Lancer
Frankychan, it gives the money back to those that EARNED IT.

Hey, I've earned my money. Granted, it's not much, but they take out A LOT of money from my paychecks. Okay, so it's not in the thousands...but those couple hundred bucks would really help me out. But I'm not getting anything from this tax cut.

Bah! Tax cut my a**. They should count us too, dang it!

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Lancer
Frankychan, it gives the money back to those that EARNED IT.

Lancer, are you really that much a fanboy of the rich, or of right wing politics that you buy into the whole "fairness" model of taxes.

[Jon Miller]

nobody truly earns the money they make

everything is interconnected now

what you produce is dependent on everyone else

so your producton (and so your money) should be shared by all

and you get what you need

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

so your producton (and so your money) should be shared by all

and you get what you need

So then no one works anymore and nothing is made or shared .

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by MRT144


Lancer, are you really that much a fanboy of the rich, or of right wing politics that you buy into the whole "fairness" model of taxes.

This guys knows what he's talking about.

[Lancer]

MRT, I work as a freight ape on graveyard shift at a mega store. Driving hysters, splitting pallats of frieght by hand. Good honest work. Last year I got $600 of my hard earned money back. I'm fairly well off, but there are single mothers working there during the day for whom that money made a real difference. It was, after all, their money...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

so your producton (and so your money) should be shared by all and you get what you need

So then no one works anymore and nothing is made or shared .

it would probably be that if you didn't produce anytihng, you didn't get anything (unless someone who was producing was willing to keep you up)

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you said your production should be shared by all, and then you get what you need.

My production might be 0, but I still need stuff .

Does your recent addition mean that if I produce ANYTHING, I get all that I need? So I could work part time at the Target and get all my food and stuff?

[Lancer]

Well, that seems to have set them back a bit.

Imran, you guys sound like you're talking about the Soviet Union. Eventually everyone quit working...then the Soviet Union quit working as well.

[Jon Miller]

I think you could work part time at target, and purchase lifes nessicites now, even with how much the rich skim off the top

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you consider necessities?

Do you mean that everyone only gets enough food to eat? What about TV, internet access (Poly access )? Is the state going to provide that too? Part time at Target right now won't get me all that (barely get me enough food).

[Lancer]

Jon, it's not Target, and "the rich" that "skim off the top" built the place, and gave me a job. I accepted the wage offered, a good insurance package, and the financial risk is basicly theirs. I see no reason to resent or covet their profits, if they are making any...

[Jon Miller]

well, remember right now the rich are skimming off the hard work of others

unfortunately there might ahve to be a couple different classes

like those who work 40 horsu a week, and those who work 20 hrsuo a week

and some jpobs would probaby have extra holidays or shorter housr or soemthing (like hwo many peopel want to be trashmen??)

Jon Miller

[Lancer]

OOppss, thought Jon was replying to me. Funny how it fit in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

remember right now the rich are skimming off the hard work of others

The 'rich' also built the store, paid for the transportation of goods, made the inital investments and took the primary losses. Without the 'rich', I wouldn't be making a damned dime!

If there is no incentive (when taxes are 100%), who'll want to do the 'hard' jobs like farming and factory work? Why would anyone want to work as hard they possibly can when they know they'll be fed?

[Jon Miller]

hard jobs would have more holidays associated with it

and maybe other incentives

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

remember right now the rich are skimming off the hard work of others

The 'rich' also built the store, paid for the transportation of goods, made the inital investments and took the primary losses. Without the 'rich', I wouldn't be making a damned dime!

If there is no incentive (when taxes are 100%), who'll want to do the 'hard' jobs like farming and factory work? Why would anyone want to work as hard they possibly can when they know they'll be fed?

I never bought that argument for the rich

so the rch shold ge tmore money from all the reset of us just because they are rich?

that is not a good system

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

remember right now the rich are skimming off the hard work of others

The 'rich' also built the store, paid for the transportation of goods, made the inital investments and took the primary losses. Without the 'rich', I wouldn't be making a damned dime!

If there is no incentive (when taxes are 100%), who'll want to do the 'hard' jobs like farming and factory work? Why would anyone want to work as hard they possibly can when they know they'll be fed?

so the rich shold get more than the rest of us because they are rich??

that is not a fair system

that just perpetuates the power of the ruling class

Jon Miller

[Frankychan]

i think this conversation has deviated from the topic on hand...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think that would do it?



I'll take the easy job anyday, even with miniscule incentives and holidays. Unless if the incentives are more 'luxury items'.

I wonder though how the government would pay for all this. It ain't like when you go totally planned, the economy will continue being as profitable as it was, unless you use force.

[Jon Miller]

we have much more than enough production to give everyone what they need in life

as you get richer, you take more out of the economy for less overall happiness (because while materail goods do not bring happiness, being without neccesities deffinitely decreases it)

it is just less effiecient, and bad for the people who take part in the capitalistic system (, I would say that it is bad for the soul)

Jonj Miller

[MRT144]

lancer, i too work as a "freight ape" as you say for a parcel shipping company. and while i appreciate the job i have and get paid 10 bucks an hour for it, i in know way think i should just sit their and be complacent in the wage difference between the corporate managment and me. i want to fight for wage increases among the common laborers while reducing the wages of the corporate managment.

Also, 600 dollars they got back? thats nice...but you know that went straight to neccesities, rather than luxuries. the benefit of being rich is being rich. taxing the rich isnt unfair to a class of people that already have so much more than the common man. its not like the government is taxing the rich into poverty.

where as the government is enforcing across the board taxes that the poor cant afford while cutting taxes for the rich who can afford another $50,000 from their 10 million dollar paycheck.

i look at taxes from the perspective of people being able to afford to live. I want tax relief and tax cuts and government benefits to go to those people who need it rather than those people who dont. if that means the rich get screwed, too bad, they can afford to get screwed out of smaller percentage of their income than a larger percentage of poor peoples income.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Actually, corporate corruption caused the stock market bubble to burst. Clinton didn't have much of anything to do with CFO's, stock brokers, and bankers cooking the books. But go ahead believing he did if it makes you feel good. Clinton's economic policy of creating surpluses helped the economy. Period. The downturn, which would have occurred regardless, has been made worse by corporate corruption and Bush's stupid policies.

The fact that it was a bubble caused the bubble to burst.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


For the Dow Jones and for the economic elite, sure. But the lower class lost ground. For the middle class, their real wages were stagnant until after Clinton became President.

Personal anecdotes are NOT evidence, but in my family's experience this is profoundly untrue. We were poor in '80 (the year with no Christmas), upper class in '89.

[JohnT]

Oh, and I'm "for". But I guess y'all probably figured that out by now.

[Kidicious]

Has anyone mentioned that Money magazine (for investors) did a survey of its readers and found that only 13% of them would spend money recieved from a cut in the dividends tax. So even according to supply-side theory, jobs would not be created.

I think there will be a small tax cut, but taxes will be raised higher than they are now very soon.

[Odin]

The best way to stimulate the economy isto increase the tax on the rich and give tax cuts to the poor. Bump up spending.

ALL HAIL DEMAND-SIDE ECONOMICS.

Reaganomics (supply side) never works because money doen't tricklw down, it's pocketed by stockholders. that is why the 80's economy was good but the quality of life (technically called the Misery Index according to my Economics textbook) was bad.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Odin
ALL HAIL DEMAND-SIDE ECONOMICS.

& praise be to FDR, whose demand-side economics repaired Hoover's supply-side fiasco;
& praise be to Clinton, whose demand-side economics repaired Reagan's supply-side fiasco.