TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who should pay more tax?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Re: Re: Who should pay more tax?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey Georgie--I guess you don't have any aspirations to ever be successful in life, eh? So the rich should pay more so that the poor can continue to sponge off of them. And when there's not enough to go around...ah, fuck 'em! Tax 'em more! After all, they are greedy, evil people that don't deserve to keep the fruits of their labor, rather it should be given away to the lowest common denominator. I apologize in advance, but 3 words are specifically coming to mind right now. GO FUCK YOURSELF. In fact, I voted to tax the poor for the sheer sake of spiting you. Personally, I'm for cutting entitlement spending and all government spending for that matter. We live in an overtaxed society where as long as there exists any sort of wage gap, people on the low end will be crying for more taxes(err, redistribution of income) from the rich to pay for their own jealousy. Last I checked, both greed and jealousy were among the 7 deadly sins. What say you?

totally agree.

if i were in charge, i would take this country back to the role it was meant to play. to provide security for its citizens and protect the rights that the government had instituted. nothing more. all these welfare programs and MediCare and Social Security crap is just draining away from the treasury and making taxes higher. the militaries role is to provide defence. not invading other countries. i would do away with all these programs, and privatize them, so that taxes would be lower, but the people would still have these programs. just it wouldnt be the gov'ts responsibility anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: the top 10% in income already pay more taxes than the other 90%. u win a million dollars, you sure as hell better expect to be paying at least 100 thousand out of that in taxes. thats a hell of a lot of money. u socialist

WTF?!?!? You've got $900,000 what the fuck could you possibly be complaining about?!?!

TvD: You don't think your ideas very well through, do you? What would happen if you take away all help for those who cannot provide for themselves? Do you think that they'll just say "ok, we're the weakest links" and then lie down and die? Or do you think that they might take up arms? Could it be that a minimum level of support for those on the bottom is a sort of security provision?

Re: Re: Re: Who should pay more tax?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: totally agree. if i were in charge, i would take this country back to the role it was meant to play. to provide security for its citizens and protect the rights that the government had instituted. nothing more. all these welfare programs and MediCare and Social Security crap is just draining away from the treasury and making taxes higher. the militaries role is to provide defence. not invading other countries. i would do away with all these programs, and privatize them, so that taxes would be lower, but the people would still have these programs. just it wouldnt be the gov'ts responsibility anymore.

You'd privatise social security? And pray tell how that would work? And correct me if I am wrong (cos I have free health care as a fundamental right, something alien in your culture) but doesn't medicare give free health care to the poor? How would privatising that help them?

And I am still waiting for somebody to tell me what effect this will have on society - crime, poverty, etc - or dont you care?

You're a Christian aren't you TranceVanDyk?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Do you think that they'll just say "ok, we're the weakest links" and then lie down and die?

Maybe if you say it in a bitchy, British accent they will ...

By the way, while one could feasibly privatise social security, medicare would be next to impossible to privatise. It's simply not in the insurance industry's best interest to provide medical care to the elderly (the group most prone to sickness and poor health) unless the premiums are so astronomically high as to balance out the inevitable medical costs that they will be covering.

Re: Re: Re: Who should pay more tax?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: totally agree. if i were in charge, i would take this country back to the role it was meant to play. to provide security for its citizens and protect the rights that the government had instituted. nothing more. all these welfare programs and MediCare and Social Security crap is just draining away from the treasury and making taxes higher. the militaries role is to provide defence. not invading other countries. i would do away with all these programs, and privatize them, so that taxes would be lower, but the people would still have these programs. just it wouldnt be the gov'ts responsibility anymore.

If I read that correctly, you would privatize means tested programs? How would that work? Religious groups and non-profit organizations wont be able to take over the government's functions in addition to what they currently provide. The poverty rate would skyrocket, considering people currently over the poverty line because they are subsidized by these programs would fall below and those who use such programs to get back on their feet would have nothing either. Privatize the school system, many kids wont be able to go to school anymore. Senior poverty might go right back to where they were before social security, especially when you get rid of government regulatory agencies for the drug companies. Social Security doesn't tax the rich anyway as it is, it's capped at $90,000.00 Also how would roads get built or repaired? I'm a bit frightened of living in this country.

If we're going by what the founding fathers specifically said, the estate tax is back in place, since they didn't want an aristocracy, and the legislature has the ability to tax to provide for the general welfare, so the programs currently in place are Constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider By the way, while one could feasibly privatise social security, medicare would be next to impossible to privatise. It's simply not in the insurance industry's best interest to provide medical care to the elderly (the group most prone to sickness and poor health) unless the premiums are so astronomically high as to balance out the inevitable medical costs that they will be covering.

How could social security be privatised? I recall G Bush proposing this not too long back (IIRC?) and I was stumped then as to work out how this could work. When I say social security I mean unemployment benefits, child benefits etc. How would these newly formed companies make an income?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Maybe if you say it in a bitchy, British accent they will ...

There is no such thing as a "British accent"! There's not even such a thing as an "English accent"! Bloody Americans!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley How could social security be privatised? I recall G Bush proposing this not too long back (IIRC?) and I was stumped then as to work out how this could work. When I say social security I mean unemployment benefits, child benefits etc. How would these newly formed companies make an income?

Oh. Unemployment insurance can't be privatized. Social security in the US is different. SS refers to the checks you get from the government after you retire.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Oh. Unemployment insurance can't be privatized. Social security in the US is different. SS refers to the checks you get from the government after you retire.

You mean a pension? Ok well that can be privatised, but I was refering to benefits - if you cut back on them (if you propose that is what should happen) then what will be the effect of that on crime and poverty?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic TvD: You don't think your ideas very well through, do you? What would happen if you take away all help for those who cannot provide for themselves? Do you think that they'll just say "ok, we're the weakest links" and then lie down and die? Or do you think that they might take up arms? Could it be that a minimum level of support for those on the bottom is a sort of security provision?

i didnt say, scrap the programs altogether. i said privatize them. take them away from the government's responsibility. its not the governments job to have all these programs. look at our deficit. look at germanies economic troubles. they have so many programs, its mind-boggling. with the unemployment rate so high, the gov't have to give even more money to the unemployed.

quote:

You're a Christian aren't you TranceVanDyk?

i wouldnt say yes, because then ide be a lying hypocrit. i have a christian education.

quote:

If I read that correctly, you would privatize means tested programs? How would that work? Religious groups and non-profit organizations wont be able to take over the government's functions in addition to what they currently provide. The poverty rate would skyrocket, considering people currently over the poverty line because they are subsidized by these programs would fall below and those who use such programs to get back on their feet would have nothing either. Privatize the school system, many kids wont be able to go to school anymore. Senior poverty might go right back to where they were before social security, especially when you get rid of government regulatory agencies for the drug companies. Social Security doesn't tax the rich anyway as it is, it's capped at $90,000.00 Also how would roads get built or repaired? I'm a bit frightened of living in this country. If we're going by what the founding fathers specifically said, the estate tax is back in place, since they didn't want an aristocracy, and the legislature has the ability to tax to provide for the general welfare, so the programs currently in place are Constitutional.

good stuff. how would u fix these social services problems. because they take a huge amount of money and give it to a lot of people who dont need. it pisses me off when i drive through a slum or something, and i see someone with a big-screen tv in their living room or a escalade parked on the side of the road.

the gov't is spending too much.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: good stuff. how would u fix these social services problems. because they take a huge amount of money and give it to a lot of people who dont need. it pisses me off when i drive through a slum or something, and i see someone with a big-screen tv in their living room or a escalade parked on the side of the road. the gov't is spending too much.

Yes, the goverment IS spending too much, but means tested programs for the poor is NOT what most of our taxes are spent on. I listed a number of ways to cut taxes in the "Do Democrats Have an Agenda?" thread that Shakka posted. As far as social security, money was taken out due to other government spending and tax cuts, so it should be more solvent than it is. The rich aren't putting in money above $90,000.00 as I mentioned, and it's important to note that while the program takes in a great deal of money, keep in mind that people then get much of that money back. It's quite simply an insurance program.

I'm middle class and I take public transportation most of the time, granted I live in a really nice neighborhood, but I live on a budget and can't see myself buying a big screen TV or escalade anytime soon, so I'm not so sure how most people who would qualify for food stamps (which you now can only get for 4 years of your life no matter what now) drive really nice cars and have huge TVs. Most people who use such services live in mixed income neighborhoods, so there would be people living nearby who might be able to afford such things, but I believe mostly this is, as Opus would say, the Strawman again.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I'm middle class and I take public transportation most of the time, granted I live in a really nice neighborhood, but I live on a budget and can't see myself buying a big screen TV or escalade anytime soon, so I'm not so sure how most people who would qualify for food stamps

You will soon enough, my friend!

It amazes me to see a lot of people who I would consider more lower-middle class driving nicer cars than they should, wearing all sorts of stupid "bling", a special "grill" on their teeth, pimped out with the latest cell phones, etc. I think it's called misplaced priorities. They spend on material items instead of putting their money where it would serve them better, like their home or in a savings account--even if it's only a few bucks a month that the can scrape together. And as long as you can count on a steady government handout, why bother changing your lifestyle? Maybe it's just more prevalent in some cities vs. others, but it outright pisses me off sometimes.

^^^^ Buying a new gizmo makes your miserably empty life endurable for yet another period of time. Saving up for something big requires a mental surplus.

So I guess I should stop going on so many dive vacations ...

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Yes, the goverment IS spending too much, but means tested programs for the poor is NOT what most of our taxes are spent on. I listed a number of ways to cut taxes in the "Do Democrats Have an Agenda?" thread that Shakka posted. As far as social security, money was taken out due to other government spending and tax cuts, so it should be more solvent than it is. The rich aren't putting in money above $90,000.00 as I mentioned, and it's important to note that while the program takes in a great deal of money, keep in mind that people then get much of that money back. It's quite simply an insurance program. I'm middle class and I take public transportation most of the time, granted I live in a really nice neighborhood, but I live on a budget and can't see myself buying a big screen TV or escalade anytime soon, so I'm not so sure how most people who would qualify for food stamps (which you now can only get for 4 years of your life no matter what now) drive really nice cars and have huge TVs. Most people who use such services live in mixed income neighborhoods, so there would be people living nearby who might be able to afford such things, but I believe mostly this is, as Opus would say, the Strawman again.

a lot of time, its people on welfare who really dont need it, and who are using the money to buy expensive stuff. or its drug money, which u have to be kind of a big timer to buy an expensive car like an escalade, or hook up some cadillac to make it "gangsta".

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You will soon enough, my friend! It amazes me to see a lot of people who I would consider more lower-middle class driving nicer cars than they should, wearing all sorts of stupid "bling", a special "grill" on their teeth, pimped out with the latest cell phones, etc. I think it's called misplaced priorities. They spend on material items instead of putting their money where it would serve them better, like their home or in a savings account--even if it's only a few bucks a month that the can scrape together. And as long as you can count on a steady government handout, why bother changing your lifestyle? Maybe it's just more prevalent in some cities vs. others, but it outright pisses me off sometimes.

I agree with you that it's better for people to save rather than buy fancy cars or some nice grills. Unfortunately Discount Megamall in Chicago no longer sell fake ones with naked lady silhouettes for $5.

That said, I'm not so sure that it's people on welfare programs are wasting money on such things. Considering people are only eligible for 4 years, people must follow all of these guidlines and how the poverty line is measured. As shown here, especially in an urban area it would be difficult to cram all other expenses and afford luxury items within 2x the cost of what your family is expected to pay for food, which is the point where income + welfare would reach. While certain states provide for exemptions for one family car, most of these states also deduct money for other government assistance, such as HUD housing (as noted in my first link). Unless people have unreported income that they could hide (illegal or legal) it would be difficult to afford such luxuries while qualifying for state & federal aid.

EDIT: OK, I see you addressed the last point while I was posting TvD. I can only say, unless there are any demographics someone can provide that suggest most people using means tested programs are if fact getting money from unreported additional income, I have to disagree that most recipients fit that profile, particularly from when I worked with such people a few years ago for a non-profit job training program such recipients were required by law to attend, which was in an urban setting.

EDIT #2: Additionally the vast majority of welfare recipients do not live in inner city neighborhoods, nor are they black. Most live in areas with mixed ethnicities and in mixed income settings. I think most of us already know this, but just want to reiterate, since the conversation seems to be shifting more to that type of poverty.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So I guess I should stop going on so many dive vacations ...

By all means: No! If it makes you feel better go ahead. Just bought six CDs yesterday myself - cheaper than seeing a psychologist or joining a religious movement.

Im sitting on the fence on this one, i still havnt made up my mind which is best, their are many arguements for and against different tax regimes, in Ireland we have a low tax regime but the state makes up the for this with high taxes on many things eg new cars, petrol, duty on house and property purchases and a value added tax system (VAT) on dozens of items and services, but i know the underpinning of our economic success is our low Corporation tax at 12.5% which is the lowest in Europe and this attracts massive inward investment from big corporations around the world, and this in turn creates many thousands of jobs, usually well paid.

But i think you have to remember that rich people will allways have more resources to pay for better financial advice than the average salaried worker, and can take advantage of many tax avoidance schemes that ordinary workers cannot, there are dozens of examples in every economy that the rich can take advantage of, i could name many specific to Ireland, but wont bore you with the details. Trust funds and offshore investments have been a favourite with the rich for decades.

The revenue did a review in Ireland recently (only a month or so ago) and found that over 40 people living and working in Ireland had saleries of 1 million Euros plus, and had not paid a single cent in tax in the last year, and this was perfectly legal due to various tax avoidance schemes that these people had taken advantage of, they also found about 300 to 400 people with salaries in excess of 500,000 Euro that had not paid any tax either, again perfectly legally. Now this is obviously wrong, but i guarantee it happens in every modern economy in the world.

Anyway im still sitting on the fence until i read more, and i must get in touch with my accountant in the morning for some, eh advice.....

Below is a link for an interesting and short article on flat tax, dont know if i agree with this one either, but i suppose it would sort out the tax evaders i mentioned above.

The ups and downs of flat taxes...................Link

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: good stuff. how would u fix these social services problems. because they take a huge amount of money and give it to a lot of people who dont need. it pisses me off when i drive through a slum or something, and i see someone with a big-screen tv in their living room or a escalade parked on the side of the road. the gov't is spending too much.

To be fair, the TV was probably stolen

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You will soon enough, my friend! It amazes me to see a lot of people who I would consider more lower-middle class driving nicer cars than they should, wearing all sorts of stupid "bling", a special "grill" on their teeth, pimped out with the latest cell phones, etc. I think it's called misplaced priorities. They spend on material items instead of putting their money where it would serve them better, like their home or in a savings account--even if it's only a few bucks a month that the can scrape together. And as long as you can count on a steady government handout, why bother changing your lifestyle? Maybe it's just more prevalent in some cities vs. others, but it outright pisses me off sometimes.

Thats the thing, there is a tendency (on here too) to judge the wealth of someone by their material posessions. Somebody posted up a graph earlier (on the "How much better America is to the socialist Scandanavian countries" thread) which listed amount of TVs, dishwashers, etc that I think was supposed to be an indicator of somekind. But it just doesn't work like that. Material possessions are one off buys. You dont need to buy a TV every week but you do need to buy food etc. A big TV isn't that hard to save up for (you can probably get a decent big one for about �300 and cheaper in America)

My mum hates asylum seekers! Everytime she comes back from shopping in Sheffield she always always says "just been past the Peace Gardens and you should see all the asylum seekers with their mobile phones" and its exactly the same attitude as TVD saying about poor people with big TVs (and I always see satellite dishes outside near enuf every house in poor areas!) Some people spend every penny on a car. Its all material and its not a good indicator of wealth

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: a lot of time, its people on welfare who really dont need it, and who are using the money to buy expensive stuff. or its drug money, which u have to be kind of a big timer to buy an expensive car like an escalade, or hook up some cadillac to make it "gangsta".

Do you actually have any evidence to back that up?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley My mum hates asylum seekers! Everytime she comes back from shopping in Sheffield she always always says "just been past the Peace Gardens and you should see all the asylum seekers with their mobile phones" and its exactly the same attitude as TVD saying about poor people with big TVs (and I always see satellite dishes outside near enuf every house in poor areas!) Some people spend every penny on a car. Its all material and its not a good indicator of wealth

Maybe not a good indicator of wealth, but certainly a good indicator of misplaced priorities. You don't think a big screen TV is hard to save up for? Here in the states, they probably go for at least $700, depending of course on the kind of TV, but they can go to upwards of several thousand dollars. That is the equivalent of many weeks to MANY months worth of groceries. I don't think my argument was that these people are deceptively more wealthy that one would believe, rather that they are buying frivolous luxuries before taking care of the necessities. And in that scenario, why should hard working people with well organized priorities be forced to pay for the stupidity and back-asswards priorities of the people you so badly want to raise our taxes to help out?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.