TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smells Like Socialist Spirit
Pages (8): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Where did the myth that if you work your ass off you will become rich? Because I know a lot of low income families who work their ass off to barely scrape by, and I do think they could use a tax break and a few social programs like health care, school, etc...

Oh it happened once, I'm sure, and now, that one example has been used by America's rich to convince everyone else that if they allow them to continue stealing the nation's wealth, they too might become rich! What a con and more fool anyone who actually fell for it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley How they should be taxed is equal to their wealth. If they have worked their socks off and become very well off, then they should pay more than those working on minimum wage. It is not called "redistribution" in any other country other than the one trying to convince the electorate that one candidate will turn America into the USSR! It is accepted in most countries as the fairest way to ensure the minimum essential government services you refer to above. The problem in America is that you DON'T have what most would consider the essential minimum services! Poor people in America get substandard health care (if any at all) and substandard levels of education. In my country, everyone is entitled to the same level of health care no matter that their wealth. All education has to adhere to minimum standards and must be available for free. Is Britain a Marxist (or even socialist) country? No. It's one of the most right wing economic countries is Europe!

i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano This clearly shows your ignorance towards the subject of wealth and how you view the system of it.

Solid logic here - your disagreement with my opinion shows clear ignorance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.

I agree with this. But then again, we're all brother socialists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.

No, they won't receive a cheque in the post! All it means is the poorest will pay less tax towards essential services than rich people, who will pay more tax towards them

So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either? It is theft in the name of "fairness" and "equality" but it achieves neither. At the end of the day, your aim is to make sure that someone else doesn't receive something that you yourself want (be it for you or for someone else). You just can't stand that one person might catch a break and therefore you want the government to be an agent of "fairness" to make sure that no one person gets any sort of financial windfall without the government's explicit blessing. I do not believe this is, nor should be, the role of government.

Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!

No, but perhaps they should be taxed.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either?

someone can spend all of their money before they die or contribute it to a charity of their choice. they have the choice to spend it before they die. when a person allows money to accumulate to such a great extent that is evidence that they have too much. Why should a child of a highly succesful person get a huge trust fund because daddy was succesful?

warren buffet seems to agree that inherited wealth should be taxed extensively.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either? It is theft in the name of "fairness" and "equality" but it achieves neither. At the end of the day, your aim is to make sure that someone else doesn't receive something that you yourself want (be it for you or for someone else). You just can't stand that one person might catch a break and therefore you want the government to be an agent of "fairness" to make sure that no one person gets any sort of financial windfall without the government's explicit blessing. I do not believe this is, nor should be, the role of government. Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!

If tax is a proportion of a person's income, then they will always be well off if they have a high paid job/business won't they?

Also, whose supposed to pay for all the hospitals and schools and police and firemen and soldiers?

Should we redistribute grades? If a person gets an A all the time, and another person in failing, why don't we take some grades from the A student and give it to the F student for the better of society?

If getting my degree from a public university makes me a communist then I guess I'm a communist.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If tax is a proportion of a person's income, then they will always be well off if they have a high paid job/business won't they? Also, whose supposed to pay for all the hospitals and schools and police and firemen and soldiers?

I'm not opposed to all taxes. I am opposed to the system you advocate. I believe most of us that actually pay taxes pay more than enough to fund legitimate government operations and services and that those that don't pay any taxes should receive some sort of income tax credit for something unearned (how is that any different from inheritance, that you cannot stand by your own admission? Just because a "poor" person receives it makes it ok?). I don't believe taxes need to be increased when we all know that increasing taxes won't balance the budget, which is the real problem, imho.

Furthermore, if you're in favor of heavily taxing all inheritance--is it not a stretch to say you're incentivizing the government to kill/sacrifice the wealthiest members of society in order to promote their own agenda, or to help fill in their own budgetary shortcomings? Eesh.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Should we redistribute grades? If a person gets an A all the time, and another person in failing, why don't we take some grades from the A student and give it to the F student for the better of society?

True...that would promote equality. I'm on board!

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Should we redistribute grades? If a person gets an A all the time, and another person in failing, why don't we take some grades from the A student and give it to the F student for the better of society?

No, I don't think it would be fair on your class mate if you swapped all your Fs with their As

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Should we redistribute grades? If a person gets an A all the time, and another person in failing, why don't we take some grades from the A student and give it to the F student for the better of society?

that's a stupid example. the goals for grading students and taxing citizens are entirely different.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm not opposed to all taxes. I am opposed to the system you advocate. I believe most of us that actually pay taxes pay more than enough to fund legitimate government operations and services and that those that don't pay any taxes should receive some sort of income tax credit for something unearned (how is that any different from inheritance, that you cannot stand by your own admission? Just because a "poor" person receives it makes it ok?). I don't believe taxes need to be increased when we all know that increasing taxes won't balance the budget, which is the real problem, imho. Furthermore, if you're in favor of heavily taxing all inheritance--is it not a stretch to say you're incentivizing the government to kill/sacrifice the wealthiest members of society in order to promote their own agenda, or to help fill in their own budgetary shortcomings? Eesh.

I believe the subject is income tax, not inheritance tax...

And you obviously don't pay enough taxes, or are not prepared to pay enough taxes, to fund the minimum essential services that other countries give their citizens as a right, otherwise education and health would be free for all at the same standard for all

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No, I don't think it would be fair on your class mate if you swapped all your Fs with their As

But I will be poor and no money will be given to me? I thought your system would help people like me?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano But I will be poor and no money will be given to me? I thought your system would help people like me?

Nobody can help you, sorry

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nobody can help you, sorry

No problem George. I will give Obama a call and see what he can do for me. It would only seem more reasonable to waste my life asking for help, rather then helping my own self.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And you obviously don't pay enough taxes, or are not prepared to pay enough taxes, to fund the minimum essential services that other countries give their citizens as a right, otherwise education and health would be free for all at the same standard for all

Wow. Just...wow. I guess I should be looking for a handout then seeing as how I don't pay enough taxes and many of the people BO claims to intend to help are those that pay little, if any income tax at all. Gimme gimme gimme!!! Where's mine?!?!

Income tax, inheritance tax--they've both come up in this thread already and you've made your position more than clear plenty of times in the past. The bottom line is that you want government to arbitrarily forcibly take money from those that have made it into the weaker hands of those that have not in the name of an arbitrarily, ever changing construct of "fair" depending on who the elected leaders are at the time and what their collective determination of "fair" is. I read you loud and clear.

Don't worry folks, Obama will make it better.

Any time I start wanting to defend Obama, someone like George comes around and reminds me just how much I hate the socialistic left..

I still can't support Mccain though. Obama is the lesser of two evils.

I think every American should be required to spend at least six months in northern Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think every American should be required to spend at least six months in northern Europe.

Fine. I'm going to Scotland.

Every American needs to spend time in Eastern Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think every American should be required to spend at least six months in northern Europe.

if every american started from a similar playing field and had a quality public education through college then we would see things a little differently. our system inherently disfavors those who don't have access to higher education, and those who have access think its as easy for everyone else as it was for them (i.e., nothing a little hard work can't solve). which isn't always the case.

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