Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

Berzerker · August 4, 2003, 20:53

Of taxes. Now, why do these liberals who keep saying this want some people to pay "their share" of taxes while exempting so many other people from paying their share?
Yeah, you make $100,000 a year so your " share" is ~$50,000 or more, but if you make $15,000, your share is $0. Hmm... so much for paying our "share"...

Skanky Burns · August 4, 2003, 20:56

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 20:56

$100,000 paying $50,000
and
$15,000 paying $3000

Sound fair?

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

$100,000 paying $50,000
and
$15,000 paying $3000

Sound fair?

No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

If the person who makes $100,000 is taxed $50,000, the person who makes $15,000 should be taxed $7500. Or, if the person who makes $15,000 is taxed $3000, then the person who makes $100,000 should only pay $20,000.

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000

Irrelevant. The government is obligated to "create" - which really means "maintain and protect" - a free, fair environment anyway.

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

If the person who makes $100,000 is taxed $50,000, the person who makes $15,000 should be taxed $7500. Or, if the person who makes $15,000 is taxed $3000, then the person who makes $100,000 should only pay $20,000.

Tax the rich, they can more easily afford it

Victor Galis · August 4, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

Does a person who makes more require proportionally more food? Face it, the basic needs that all humans have are the same for everyone. Someone who is hardly making enough to stay alive can simply not afford to pay the same percentage as someone who is ridiculously wealthy (i.e. much more than $100k per year).

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:03

I thought we were talking about fairness, not who can afford what. Who are you to say that a "rich" person can afford something?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:03

Do you have a flat rate of taxation in the US?

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Does a person who makes more require proportionally more food? Face it, the basic needs that all humans have are the same for everyone. Someone who is hardly making enough to stay alive can simply not afford to pay the same percentage as someone who is ridiculously wealthy (i.e. much more than $100k per year).

Fortunately, I have a solution. Tax them both at the same rate, that allows the poor person to buy the basic necessities. This means both people get to eat, but the tax rate is not skewed against either person. A flat tax.

Assuming that there is a tax, a flat tax is the closest thing to fair.

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:05

Quote:

Do you have a flat rate of taxation in the US?

No. Your point?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
a flat tax is the closest thing to fair.

Not to a socialist

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

$0 - $5000 - you pay no tax
5,000 -15000 - you pay 15% tax
$15000 - $30000 - you pay 20%
$30000 - $60000 - you pay 35%
$60000 + you pay 50%

totally arbritary figures, but you get the gist?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

No. Your point?

relax, just a question

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:12

Quote:

Not to a socialist

Then I suppose socialists don't know what "fair" means

Quote:

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

Explain how that's a compromise? That's simply a system of taxation slanted against those who do well in life. Now, I don't believe we should have ANY income tax, but if there is one, the closest thing to "fair" is to set a tax rate that allows people who make the least amount of money to survive, and apply that rate to everyone.

Berzerker · August 4, 2003, 21:13

"Fair"? What happened to "share"? "Share" connotes we each have an obligation to pony up, not some pony up more so Al Sharpton's supporters pay little or nothing. Now, why is it "fair" to steal (oops, "tax") more than half of what you make while I pay nothing?

Skanky -

Quote:

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000?

You're confusing nature with government. The former most likely created that different environment, not the latter. If you and I are both sent to government schools and you succeed and I don't, the government didn't create one environment for you and another for me.

Berzerker · August 4, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

$0 - $5000 - you pay no tax

That groups isn't paying their share.

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
the closest thing to "fair" is to set a tax rate that allows people who make the least amount of money to survive, and apply that rate to everyone.

Thats shocking!

and what if that rate isn't enought to fund the state, where does the rest come from?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

That groups isn't paying their share.

it's not earning much either, if they have to pay tax they may as well stay on benefits?

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:19

Quote:

and what if that rate isn't enought to fund the state

It's plenty to fund the state, so long as the state doesn't try to play mommy and daddy, and build a huge, offensive military. That means no social programs and no stealth bombers, for example.

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

it's not earning much either, if they have to pay tax they may as well stay on benefits?

Whoever said we supported these "benefits"?

In any case, it hardly meets the definition of "fair" to simply give people money for doing nothing.

Berzerker · August 4, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

and what if that rate isn't enought to fund the state, where does the rest come from?

Then the state must reduce it's expenditures.

Quote:

it's not earning much either, if they have to pay tax they may as well stay on benefits?

Then they still aren't paying their share. In fact, all the other groups below that top tax bracket aren't paying theirs if the top bracket IS paying their share.

Skanky Burns · August 4, 2003, 21:23

I'm talking about the laws governing business, police etc to protect those buisnesses and infrastructure. Obviously, someone earning $100,000 a year benefits more from this single environment than does someone earning a much smaller amount. No kidding there aren't multiple environments, but that one environment might be better suited to some people. Would it not be fair that those people the environment is suited to pay more than those it isn't as suited to?

Quote:

Irrelevant. The government is obligated to "create" - which really means "maintain and protect" - a free, fair environment anyway.

You may have had a point were there only one "free, fair environment" that the government was able to create.

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

It's plenty to fund the state, so long as the state doesn't try to play mommy and daddy, and build a huge, offensive military. That means no social programs and no stealth bombers, for example.

So you'd rather take the last couple of dollars of a few hundred 'breadline' families every week than make some millionaire only have an half portion of cavair once a week instead of a full one?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

In fact, all the other groups below that top tax bracket aren't paying theirs if the top bracket IS paying their share.

Then we have a basic difference of opinon. (is there a 'shrug' smilie?)

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

So you'd rather take the last couple of dollars of a few hundred 'breadline' families every week than make some millionaire only have an half portion of cavair once a week instead of a full one?

Don't try to make an emotional argument, it won't work with me. Fair is fair. If you want to talk about something else, such as who we feel bad for and how we should help those people, by all means, start a thread. AFAIK, this one is about fairness.

Sava · August 4, 2003, 21:31

Well Floyd, since you are talking about fairness... I don't think it's fair that things like health care aren't affordable. How come you seem to care more about what's fair to the wealthiest Americans rather than those who need more "fairness" in their lives?

reds4ever · August 4, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Don't try to make an emotional argument, it won't work with me. Fair is fair. If you want to talk about something else, such as who we feel bad for and how we should help those people, by all means, start a thread. AFAIK, this one is about fairness.

I thought it was about taxation and I stand by my views. As a society the strong need to look after the weak

Soul Survivor · August 4, 2003, 21:39

we all pay the government for the same things, roads, schools, military, why should we even have percentages, why not just make a tax, $15,000 per year if you want to live in the country.

David Floyd · August 4, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Well Floyd, since you are talking about fairness... I don't think it's fair that things like health care aren't affordable.

If someone can't afford healthcare, you might say that's unfair, but you can't say that it's fair to me to take my money to help them pay for it.

Quote:

How come you seem to care more about what's fair to the wealthiest Americans rather than those who need more "fairness" in their lives?

I care about the objective definition of fairness, and in this case, it means that either everyone pays the same rate of tax, or no one pays any tax at all.

reds,

Quote:

I thought it was about taxation and I stand by my views. As a society the strong need to look after the weak

That's what voluntary charities are for.

Skanky Burns · August 4, 2003, 21:42

Then how would the poor souls who earn only $15,000 a year live? What would happen to those who earnt less than that?