Thread Tools
Old August 5, 2003, 17:22   #121
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
I thought Jesus was/is God.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 17:37   #122
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Dom -
Quote:
They don't choose Libertarianism because the system works, they choose it because its the best way for the greedy bastards to get even richer. And I say to HELL with that.
Gee, another mind reader. I chose libertarianism because I despise hypocrisy, and it is hypocritical to complain about being mugged on the street while asking politicians to mug your neighbors and call the theft "taxes". If stealing is wrong, it doesn't become right simply because the thieves outnumber the victims. And I sure as hell won't support stealing, "legal" or not. It has nothing to do with my personal wealth since I was a libertarian when I was homeless and when I was not. Either you believe in freedom or you don't, and claiming to believe in freedom only to pervert the meaning of the word to accomodate an anti-freedom ideology is dishonest.

Quote:
In other countries where the Communists ARE the poor, they ARE starving.
They don't live under libertarian systems either.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 17:46   #123
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
Berzerker - Sorry, perhaps I should've been more specific... the leadership of the Libertarian Party.

I was at a Libertarian training camp that they tried to pass off as a business education program and in it the guy actually said "Helping other people is bad." And one of the guy in this group was the Libertarian candidate for NJ and he drove home the same point...

I know there are Libertarian VOTERS out there who believe in it because it works.

And if you read my other post, you'll note that I believe in many of the Libertarian ideals even to extremes the Libertarians themselves don't suggest. I just don't like the motives of the leadership. From what I saw, I don't see any reason why they would uphold any of the principles other than the ones that will make them richer. But they ARE politicians, so what are we to expect.


And I think you took my earlier statement about Communists in other countries being poor out of context. I wasn't saying this in order to justify Communism, but rather that when you're sitting in a Lexus and you demand more money out of your own piggish greed, and you're starving in the streets, its two entirely different things.

Obviously, if they lived under a Libertarian.. or nearer to Libertarian system then what they have, they'd be better off.
__________________
Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 17:54   #124
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Dom -
Quote:
IAnd I think you took my earlier statement about Communists in other countries being poor out of context. I wasn't saying this in order to justify Communism, but rather that when you're sitting in a Lexus and you demand more money out of your own piggish greed, and you're starving in the streets, its two entirely different things.
Never said you were trying to justify communism, I read your posts and you aren't a communist. Just pointing out that the conditions in despotic regimes are not an indictment of libertarianism.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 17:57   #125
Ben Kenobi
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Succession GamesCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
I thought Jesus was/is God.
He is. The person calling him 'Good teacher' does not understand who Jesus is, hence Jesus clarifies, "don't call me good unless you think I am God. "
__________________
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette and Adam Smith you will be missed
"All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - JRR Tolkein
Get busy living or get busy dying.
Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 18:01   #126
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Never said you were trying to justify communism, I read your posts and you aren't a communist. Just pointing out that the conditions in despotic regimes are not an indictment of libertarianism.
Never said they were, I was responding to what yavoon said about Communists being poor, and I said not in this country. In other countries, yes. Just stating a fact with no insinuations intended.
__________________
Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 18:02   #127
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
He is. The person calling him 'Good teacher' does not understand who Jesus is, hence Jesus clarifies, "don't call me good unless you think I am God. "
And boy was THAT guy in for a surprise!
__________________
Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 18:20   #128
DanS
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Deity
 
DanS's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
Quote:
you pay more, you get more... the money the rich shell out help uphold a system that benefits them... and the poor... well, not so much. more like they're paying to support a system that represses them. The cops come to your house a lot faster if you live in one part of Englewood than in another... you're kids get a much better education at Bergen Academy (which is public) than at Ridgefield Park High... now, of course, you know not of the locations, but I hope you get the idea...
You pay more, you get more. Precisely.

The obvious answer is to have them pay into the system such that the government views them as a bread and butter constituency. Otherwise, you do have the Brazil problem that you detail.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
DanS is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 18:28   #129
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Obiwan -
Quote:
He is. The person calling him 'Good teacher' does not understand who Jesus is, hence Jesus clarifies, "don't call me good unless you think I am God. "
Jesus didn't say "call me good only if you think I'm God", he said:

Quote:
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."
Jesus was pointing out the inappropriateness of calling him good when only God is good. The question Jesus posed was a challenge to the student's presumption that Jesus was good, and the second part explains why the presumption is false, because "God alone" is good.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 18:39   #130
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
Re: Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
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"...
This is a bogus, hypothetical situation. The tax on a $100,000 income is no where near $50,000.
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old August 5, 2003, 19:08   #131
lightblue
Warlord
 
Local Time: 07:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: L'Boro, UK
Posts: 126
Considering that the distribution of wealth in most western countries consists of a very small hyper wealthy upper class, a slightly bigger rich class, a majority of people who can get by and significant number of people who struggle to provide their families with basic necessities.

This taxation proposal thing would result in the majority of the population being disadvantaged for the few compared to the current status. I'd suggest looking at what happened in the UK after the attempted introduction of the Poll Tax in 80's to see the probable outcome of any such action. And I'd wager this would be on a far greater scale. Chegitz might get his rise of the proletariat...
__________________
It’s a great art, is rowing. It’s the finest art there is. It’s a symphony of motion. And when you reach perfection, you are touching the divine. It touches the you of yous – which is your soul. George Pocock
What fun is that? Why all that hard, exhausting work? Where does it get you? What is the good of it? It is one of the strange ironies of life that those who work the hardest, who subject themselves to the strictest discipline, who give up certain pleasurable things in order to achieve a goal, are the happiest. Brutus Hamilton
lightblue is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 00:03   #132
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Strangelove -
Quote:
This is a bogus, hypothetical situation. The tax on a $100,000 income is no where near $50,000.
And you have a medical degree? Do you understand what the word "hypothetical" means? A "hypothetical" tax rate doesn't need to be the actual tax rate, just hypothetical. Besides, this was what Al Sharpton was advocating - a %50 tax rate for rich people, so the "hypothetical" is relevant once he defines "rich" to include people making $100,000. Furthermore, you obviously missed the symbol ~ which means "about" or "roughly". And you're wrong anyway, Federal, state, and local taxes are ~ %50 on most "rich" people now if not more.

edit: And Sharpton wants that %50 tax rate to be the federal income tax rate, so that doesn't even include state and local taxes, federal sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc...

Last edited by Berzerker; August 6, 2003 at 00:10.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 01:04   #133
Giant_Squid
Emperor
 
Giant_Squid's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,046
David (in response to something way back on page two that you've probably forgotten by now):

Quote:
And I agree. Which is why I don't insist that everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes (well, again, other than $0, anyway). What you are doing is looking at discretionary income, and trying to determine the effects of various tax rates on that income. But the problem is, not everyone has the same amount of discretionary income - that is, due to debts, etc., someone who makes $100,000/year could have less money to spend after expenses than someone who makes $30,000/year. What you are doing, though, is that saying "by definition", anyone who makes six figures is rich, and can afford a proportionally higher amount of income. Let's take an example.
Person A makes $120,000/year - call it $10,000/month. Person B makes $36,000/year, or $3,000/month.
Your system says that Person A is automatically richer, and thus can afford to pay more in taxes, and thus SHOULD pay more in taxes out of "fairness".
But wait. Let's say that Person A is divorced, and has to pay alimony and child support. Let's say that when he was married, he and his wife bought a house that they could afford easily on a dual income (say, ~$3000/month), but after the divorce he was stuck with the house, paying for it on only one income. Stick in a car payment and food, clothing, gas, etc., and the guy is looking at a huge amount of money, BEFORE we even factor in taxes.
Person B, on the other hand, is just out of college, which he worked his way through on scholarships, grants, and a job. He lives in a small single bedroom apartment which costs $450/month, is unmarried, and has an older car he paid cash for, with his parents' help. That is, other than his apartment payment and food/clothing/gas, he has no real expenses.
In this scenario, who is better off, financially speaking? I think that it's fairly clear that Person B is much better off, in that he has no debt and very few expenses. Person A, even though he makes 3 times as much money, is riddled with debt and expenses, and has little money left over.
Obviously, a 50% tax rate is going to hurt Person A MORE than Person B. Probably a LOT more. Which brings us to the biggest problem with your system - in order to make it "work", we would have to look at the exact financial/lifestyle situation of EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER. Privacy issues aside, this is simply impractical.
Now, let's apply my system to these same two people. In my system, there is a flat tax of, say, 15%. Person A is going to be fine with a 15% tax rate, and Person B not only won't starve, but will probably increase his financial stability, relative to Person A.
Of course, we'll run into issues where the 15% tax rate will be nothing more than peanuts to a billionaire, and will hurt him not in the slightest, while someone who makes only $20,000/year will be affected worse. However, this tax rate is designed so that no one starved - that is, the poorest of the poor can pay this tax rate, and still eat/live, as long as they are working. Granted, this system of taxation is not punitive towards rich people, and it doesn't redistribute wealth, but OTOH, it does not make unfounded assumptions and generalities about the financial status of people, based solely upon their income.
Now, which system sounds more fair to you, using any definition of fair you want?
Isn't this sort of the basis of the current system where basically everything you do from donating to charity to divorcing to pretty much down to sneezing shifts your tax burden one way or the other? I don't support this system as is because it's gotten to the point of absurdity, but there is something to be said for modifying taxes a bit to take account of special circumstances, and I certainly wouldn't recommend a simple graduated income tax where everyone earning X pays Y%.
Every system has some exceptions and some people who slip through the cracks so that it ends up being unfair. If one can minimize these through intelligent policies, and if the gain in the majority of cases when the system works as planned is greater than the loss in the few cases where it fails, then I would call it a step forward. It's my educated guess (although I would have to be an economist with a specialty in tax theory to make it anything better) that the number of seemingly-rich-but-really-poor people harmed by this system is going to be less than the number of obviously-and-blatantly-poor people harmed in a flat tax system, especially if it this carried out intelligently (someday, somewhere, there WILL be a government program that gets carried out intelligently, mark my words)

Quote:
I suppose that depends on a number of things. Rich people don't tend to be very liquid in terms of assets - I doubt there is any billionaire in the world who could pony up $500 million in cash at any given moment. And don't try to bring non-liquid assets into the game - the poor person has to pay cash.
True, but this was a stupid example on my part (sorry!) since people don't actually pay from their savings, but rather from their income. So if a billionaire was earning $100 million per year, the government would withhold $50 million from their paycheck, which oughtn't to cause any trouble regarding liquid assets. Besides, if such a policy were to go into effect (actually, I don't know why I'm saying "if", we have a progressive income tax right now) the rich would make sure they had enough available assets to pay it.
__________________
"Although I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to hear me tell you how wrong you are."
Giant_Squid is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 01:21   #134
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
GS,

I'll respond more later, but:

Quote:
It's my educated guess (although I would have to be an economist with a specialty in tax theory to make it anything better) that the number of seemingly-rich-but-really-poor people harmed by this system is going to be less than the number of obviously-and-blatantly-poor people harmed in a flat tax system,
If we are setting the tax rate such that the person with the lowest income can survive, no one is really being harmed. We're simply applying the tax rate that we apply to the poorest person to everyone - what richer people pay in taxes doesn't harm the poorer people, after all.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 01:24   #135
Ted Striker
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Batallón de San Patricio, United States of America
Posts: 3,696
Al Sharpton is just one of those angry brothers using his own damn community by slapping down the race card every chance he gets.
__________________
"Let the People know the facts and the country will be saved." Abraham Lincoln

Mis Novias
Ted Striker is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 03:00   #136
monolith94
Mac
Emperor
 
monolith94's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New England
Posts: 3,572
David Floyd, you've got a heart of gold. My your bed always be too hot for sex and your chicken too cold to be tasty, may your children need braces and your house always leak.
__________________
"mono has crazy flow and can rhyme words that shouldn't, like Eminem"
Drake Tungsten
"get contacts, get a haircut, get better clothes, and lose some weight"
Albert Speer
monolith94 is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 03:06   #137
Al B. Sure!
Emperor
 
Al B. Sure!'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,706
i dont know obi-wan... there's a billion muslims who would disagree and say that jesus never claimed to be God but that was added in by paul and others...
Al B. Sure! is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 07:06   #138
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 06:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
David Floyd, you've got a heart of gold. My your bed always be too hot for sex and your chicken too cold to be tasty, may your children need braces and your house always leak.


We aren't talking about whether or not I would voluntarily give, but whether or not I should be forced to give. If you don't think I would help out others in need, then you should probably ask those who have met me what they think - I'm inclined to think that those people would believe that I would.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 08:23   #139
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

And you have a medical degree? Do you understand what the word "hypothetical" means? A "hypothetical" tax rate doesn't need to be the actual tax rate, just hypothetical. Besides, this was what Al Sharpton was advocating - a %50 tax rate for rich people, so the "hypothetical" is relevant once he defines "rich" to include people making $100,000. Furthermore, you obviously missed the symbol ~ which means "about" or "roughly". And you're wrong anyway, Federal, state, and local taxes are ~ %50 on most "rich" people now if not more.

edit: And Sharpton wants that %50 tax rate to be the federal income tax rate, so that doesn't even include state and local taxes, federal sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc...
Where in your first post do you actually say that Al Sharpton proposed this particular tax rate?

The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.

Oh, and did you see the comma in between the words "bogus" and "hypothetical"?
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 10:28   #140
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
Quote:
Originally posted by reds4ever


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?
Welcome to Europe!
Atahualpa is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 10:36   #141
DanS
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Deity
 
DanS's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
Quote:
The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.
Some localities do tax income. Maryland and DC do it, for instance. For DC, it's about 50% of the federal income tax, IIRC.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
DanS is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 14:17   #142
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Strangelove -
Quote:
Where in your first post do you actually say that Al Sharpton proposed this particular tax rate?
I didn't, the point of the thread was to call attention to the hypocrisy of liberals who say the "rich" need to pay even more in taxes to match their "share" while everyone else pays lower rates and far less in taxes (i.e., why is everyone else's "share" so much less?). But my following comment about paying $50,000 out of an income of $100,000 does reflect the rate Sharpton advocates.

Quote:
The current maximum Federal tax rate is 37.5%. The state tax rate is 5%. Localities don't tax income. This doesn't add up to 50%.
That's nice, but you're ignoring payroll, sales, property, and umpteen other taxes we already have. Sharpton wants the federal income tax bumped to %50 for "rich" people, and we know when a liberal democrat starts defining "rich", it'll include a bunch of middle class people because there aren't enough rich people to pay for what they want.

Quote:
Oh, and did you see the comma in between the words "bogus" and "hypothetical"?
Yes, "bogus" describes your perception of this "hypothetical situation" you claim I offered. So what's your point? How can a "hypothetical" situation qualify as "bogus", especially when the "hypothetical" reflects reality now? Even your numbers add up to %50 when you throw in the payroll tax, and above %50 for the self-employed. Throw in all the other taxes if you don't consider the payroll tax an actual tax and the "rich" are already paying ~%50 if not more.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 15:58   #143
Felch
Civilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Felch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germantown, Maryland
Posts: 3,470
You need to calm down your libertarian extremism with a recognition of the destabilizing impact this sort of tax structure would cause.

Remember, first and foremost, that people are only willing to pay what they think is fair. Someone who derives little or no real benefit from the government (poor schools, worse policing, etc.) is not willing to pay 10% of their income to the state. People who derive a great deal of benefit, insured bank accounts, regulated stock market, polce protection of property, government contracts for their business, et cetera, are willing to pay whatever it takes to reasonably provide these services.

The problem arises because people who are poor and feel that their lot in life is bad are more willing to take extreme actions to change their position. Progressive taxes and a minimal welfare state provide the outlet for anger and resentment that prevents it from festering into Marxism.

The trick is to keep taxation at a local level, where people can be better sure that the money they pay is being used properly, and is not merely financing a new horde of government paper-pushers. If you really want to reform the federal tax code force the national government to derive its money from the states. Then the states will realize that the feds are just a sow that all the little porkers suck at for nickels and dimes, and they, the states, will enforce a limited national government.

Localizing government is the best way to limit it.
__________________
Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.
Felch is offline  
Old August 6, 2003, 23:48   #144
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Strangelove -

Yes, "bogus" describes your perception of this "hypothetical situation" you claim I offered. So what's your point? How can a "hypothetical" situation qualify as "bogus", especially when the "hypothetical" reflects reality now? Even your numbers add up to %50 when you throw in the payroll tax, and above %50 for the self-employed. Throw in all the other taxes if you don't consider the payroll tax an actual tax and the "rich" are already paying ~%50 if not more.
The payroll tax has a maximum, so the more you make, the proportionally less you pay.

Anyway, I'm in no danger of making it to the $100,000/year bracket, because the bulk of the people I see are Sharpton's folks. You see, Medicaid and Medicare have this nasty habit of balancing their budget by taking five-fingered discounts from the people who provide services to them. They can even retroactively change the fees they pay for services and exact a refund from their providers. So let me tell you buddy, if you think you're going to get any sympathy from me, you're sadly mistaken.
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 01:36   #145
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Progressive taxes and a minimal welfare state provide the outlet for anger and resentment that prevents it from festering into Marxism.
In other words, let them steal some so they won't steal it all.

Strangelove -
Quote:
The payroll tax has a maximum, so the more you make, the proportionally less you pay.
That max is ~$65,000, so someone making $100,000 will still get nailed with most of the tax.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm in no danger of making it to the $100,000/year bracket, because the bulk of the people I see are Sharpton's folks.
And you plan on making less than that for the rest of your life?
I don't base my ideas about taxes on what I or you make, but on what is moral. You apparently base your ideas on not being one of the people getting screwed.

Quote:
You see, Medicaid and Medicare have this nasty habit of balancing their budget by taking five-fingered discounts from the people who provide services to them. They can even retroactively change the fees they pay for services and exact a refund from their providers.
And then the medical profession tries to make up for that loss by over-charging the people who do pay; I do see, I understand what socialised medicine in one sector of the economy does to the marketplace.

Quote:
So let me tell you buddy, if you think you're going to get any sympathy from me, you're sadly mistaken.
That's a weird comment, you complain about what Medicare and Medicaid are doing to your profession and think I'm asking for your sympathy? Btw, why do you keep avoiding questions?
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 14:05   #146
Adam Smith
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Adam Smith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,631
I don't think much of Sharpton's argument that rich people have benefitted more from government services and therefore need to pay their "fair" share. The government provides public goods which everyone has access to - national defense, clean air, court system, etc. . But differences in outcomes have to depend on differences in inputs. That leaves things like amount of work, education, and luck. If luck had a big effect, there would be little or no relation between work, education, and earnings. If the amount of work matters it is hard to see how anyone could object to the result. If the complaint is about access to education, then Sharpton should have talked about that, not about the "fair" share of taxes.

All that said, I think you can make a pretty good economic case for a progressive income tax. People tend to work less as their income rises because leisure becomes increasingly valuable. This results in an inelastic or even backward bending supply of labor. By taxing higher earners at higher rates a progressive income tax causes less loss in the amount of time people are willing to work. The converse of this is that we should adopt a negative income tax for low income workers to encourage them to work.

There are several long run considerations. If taxes are high enough people are less likely to enter high income professions or take additional risks. Why give up years of income to go through medical school if you won't earn anything more? Why launch a new product if you could spend the time sitting on the beach? In the long run skilled workers might also emigrate. (England's famously confiscatory tax rates caused the Beatles to flee the country. "Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me...") Despite Arthur Laffer's unsupported claims, it does not appear that we are at this point in the US. Progressive taxes might also be seen as a remedy for economically harmful wealth transfers such as gains from insider trading. But in this case the best approach is to fix the root problem, rather than rely on the tax system to help even accounts.

edit: typos
__________________
Old posters never die.
They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....
Adam Smith is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 16:22   #147
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Adam -
Quote:
I think you can make a pretty good economic case for a progressive income tax. People tend to work less as their income rises because leisure becomes increasingly valuable.
Do you think the role of government is to coercively reduce leisure time and increase labor?

Quote:
This results in an inelastic or even backward bending supply of labor. By taxing higher earners at higher rates a progressive income tax causes less loss in the amount of time people are willing to work.
Not when that "progressive" tax system exists to create a welfare state (and that is why we have progressive taxes). We see generational welfare for a number of reasons, but it exists primarily because people are paid to sit back and not work. Besides, if I make millions and go off to Tahiti, the loss of my labor is meaningless since my money stays behind in the economy producing jobs, etc.

Quote:
The converse of this is that we should adopt a negative income tax for low income workers to encourage them to work.
Stop paying them to have babies and watch Oprah and that'll encourage them to work.

Quote:
Progressive taxes might also be seen as a remedy for economically harmful wealth transfers such as gains from insider trading. But in this case the best approach is to fix the root problem, rather than rely on the tax system to help even accounts.
Yes, why punish the innocent because of the guilty?
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 16:28   #148
Verto
Apolyton Storywriters' GuildNationStatesMac
King
 
Verto's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,824
It seems that the 'liberals' have these basic views.

1.) They know what the rich can and should pay in taxes.

2.) The wealthy should be punished for having succeeded in a free economy.

3.) It is not about the government existing on the amount of funds the American people feel it deserves. It is about the American people paying enough taxes to keep government afloat.

I give a to the idea of a flat tax.
Verto is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 16:44   #149
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
It is not about the government existing on the amount of funds the American people feel it deserves. It is about the American people paying enough taxes to keep government afloat.
Yes, 2 ways of looking at government:

1) People deserve the government they are willing to pay for.
2) People "deserve" the government they can force others to pay for.

To me, 1) is right wing and 2) is left wing.
Berzerker is offline  
Old August 7, 2003, 19:06   #150
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:54
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker


In other words, let them steal some so they won't steal it all.

Strangelove -

That max is ~$65,000, so someone making $100,000 will still get nailed with most of the tax.
Yes, but if you make 5 million the payroll tax is peanuts.
Quote:


And you plan on making less than that for the rest of your life?
I don't base my ideas about taxes on what I or you make, but on what is moral. You apparently base your ideas on not being one of the people getting screwed.
Medical ethics dictates that I can't abandon people just because they change from private insurance to public. In some instances that would be virtually manslaughter. Even if that weren't the case I would not refuse to treat a person based on the type of insurance they have. Can you understand that?
Quote:

And then the medical profession tries to make up for that loss by over-charging the people who do pay; I do see, I understand what socialised medicine in one sector of the economy does to the marketplace.
Well, I can't ask my office staff to work for free, can I? Anyway I don't think I overcharge, particularly when you consider what lawyers ask for an hour's work.
Quote:
That's a weird comment, you complain about what Medicare and Medicaid are doing to your profession and think I'm asking for your sympathy?
No, you complain about the progressive tax rate, then I inform you of the burden the government places on one particular group that provides services to them. The progressive tax is at least distributed and legally mandated. The retroactive fee adjustments enforced by Medicare are focused on one small group, and probably have no legal precident.
Quote:
Btw, why do you keep avoiding questions?
I have a life.
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:54.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team