|
And another thing...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Yes, I support tax cuts, across the board. I do not support government dictated reallocation of wealth. Another good quote:
| quote: | YOUR TAX MONEY AT WORK
You work your buns off for 40 hours or more every week. When you're not working you're sitting at the dining room table trying to figure out how you are going to get the bills paid and still have some money to put aside for your child's college education. You take a look at your paycheck and see that deduction for federal income tax. You also see the deduction for Medicare tax. That money would sure come in handy for your own personal needs, wouldn't it ... but you may need Medicare when you get older, so you just let that 2.25% slide.
The next weekend a friend comes up with tickets for a local college football game. While you're sitting in the stands you notice a blimp flying overhead. On the side of the blimp you see the words "1-800-MEDICARE" You think that perhaps this is a bit odd. You wonder why they are advertising Medicare in the skies over a college football game.
When you get home you decide to find out just who put that blimp up there. Just curious, I guess. You then find out that the federal government spent $600,000 on that blimp. It's part of a $30 million advertising campaign to make Medicare better known to seniors.
A blimp! $600,000 for a blimp! $600,000 while you're struggling to make ends meet and trying to figure out a way to get your kid into college. Somewhere some bureaucrats and politicians decided that it was more important for the federal government to have that money to spend on a blimp than it was to allow the people who actually earned that money to keep it and use it to cover their own family expenses and needs.
What is it going to take to send you to the battlefront in the fight to cut back on the size of government? What is it going to take to convince you that politicians are out of control with their spending? Is a blimp enough? |
|
|
|
| NYGblue |
Tax cuts are proportional. the 8-5 working class guy won't benefit at all... reallocation works... the rich just don't want us to think that...
VIVA SOCIALISMA! :haha: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I'm a libertarian, so I'm all in favor of cutting as much government as possible (except in the case of education, which behind defense and the tenants of the constitution is the single most important implied power of the governmentn IMO). I am also in favor of a flat tax. I could never figure out this whole tax the rich more thing. I understand they have more money, but does that mean they owe a greater percentage of that money? To me it equates to "you've worked hard, and earn a lot of money...congrats, we're going to take an unproportionally fair amount away from you." It totally goes against the basis of capitalism.
It's already leading to shortages in key areas, such as doctors. You go through four years of expensive medical school, 3-7 years of residency where you make next to nothing while working 100 hours a week, and then you have to pay off debts from schooling for the rest of your life while again working hundred hour weeks. Who the hell wants to be a doctor? You have to reward those who work hard and provide a great service to the comminuty in key areas. In a perfect world the only reward a doctor would need is the joy of helping others, but let's get real. Taxing the hell out of people that work hard removes their incentive to achieve greater things.
We need to get back to basics; flat tax, small, small, small national government and the individuals right to spend and invest their money in the way they want. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm a libertarian, so I'm all in favor of cutting as much government as possible (except in the case of education, which behind defense and the tenants of the constitution is the single most important implied power of the governmentn IMO). I am also in favor of a flat tax. I could never figure out this whole tax the rich more thing. I understand they have more money, but does that mean they owe a greater percentage of that money? To me it equates to "you've worked hard, and earn a lot of money...congrats, we're going to take an unproportionally fair amount away from you." It totally goes against the basis of capitalism.
It's already leading to shortages in key areas, such as doctors. You go through four years of expensive medical school, 3-7 years of residency where you make next to nothing while working 100 hours a week, and then you have to pay off debts from schooling for the rest of your life while again working hundred hour weeks. Who the hell wants to be a doctor? You have to reward those who work hard and provide a great service to the comminuty in key areas. In a perfect world the only reward a doctor would need is the joy of helping others, but let's get real. Taxing the hell out of people that work hard removes their incentive to achieve greater things.
We need to get back to basics; flat tax, small, small, small national government and the individuals right to spend and invest their money in the way they want. |
Well you made an interesting point, but your argument is completely flawed using the Doctor example. You have no idea as to WHY there are less doctors. If I can tell you one thing, it has NOTHING to do with Taxes. It mainly has to do with the extroadinarily high insurance costs that the doctors or hospitals have to endure. The money gets sucked out by insurance coverage for doctors and hospitals due to the high rate of lawsuits brought against them. Taxing a doctor that makes 100,000+ a year is such a terrible example. Yes they have loans, but guess what, most of them can pay it back. I hate it when people try to victimize white collar workers, its so dumb.
You want to talk about taxation, lets talk about those that live in an area where they can't go to college or medical school. Where they have to work 2 jobs just to barely keep themselves and possibly a family afloat. This is MOST of America. Making a flat tax takes MORE money away from them. Whereas the people that get taxed proportionally higher have MORE money under a flat-tax system, making the distribution of wealth even greater. Why do rich ppl. deserve less of a percentage. That "they work hard" crapological argument is skewed and naive to the reality of 40 million Americans who make ends meet. I say not only tax the rich but INCREASE the proportion. them, if they don't get to buy another yacht. If it means giving more services and opportunities to those that need it then YAY! Your a liberatarian, they believe in less govt. interference as long as SOCIETY is equal which it is not. (ACLU)
I only believe in less govt. interference in strictly social issues like laws based on morality. Telling the public what they should and should not do that have no real protective reasoning is conservative and moronic. Otherwise Tax the ing rich I don't give a damn, my family is in that upper 10% and when I make a career ill be happy to give my money up as long as its helping those that truly need it. The solution is to use the money better not to change the tax laws.
END OF RANT. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Your assertion about there being less doctors due to skyrocketing insurance premiums is also correct, though NeoPhono makes a perfectly valid point as well, IMO. I'm definitely for tort reform, which would hopefully help to ease the insurance costs that we've all been saddled with, and which only continue to go up as more multi-million dollar verdicts are handed out to people who were unfortunate enough to be in the right place at the wrong time.
Also, isn't taxation, and therefore the redistribution of wealth essentially a morality issue the way that you argue it? the rich, help the poor is an argument that tries to prey on people's emotions and feelings of morality, as if it's their civic duty to help those who have less than them. Just because someone has more money than you do, doesn't mean that you have a rightful claim to their wealth. So a guy wants to buy another yacht--are you telling me that simply because you can't also buy a yacht that you are entitled to his? That somehow he hasn't earned it since he paid for it, but that you somehow have a more rightful claim to it than he does? I just can't see it that way, it's illogical.
If I choose to share my wealth, it will be my choice to do so, not because someone else demanded it of me. My right to personal property, not your right to my property. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
My main point is that the yacht isn't neccesary when there are people out there that are struggling mightily day to day. They have no access to health-care, medicine, decent education, housing. I have a REALLY big problem with the fact that many are struggling and a few are living it up. Its not that they didn't work hard, its that they don't need ALL of it, especially those making a significant amount of money. My town is very republican, the people complaining about taxes live in a big house with a BMW. I am sorry I don't really buy that argument. Go 20 min. from my house to Elizabeth, NJ or Newark and see what SOOOO many people have to struggle through. Thats why the wealth should be redistributed, IMO. Besides, don't those people making 7 dollars an hour or whatever often work just as hard as that guy makes 200,000 a year? How is that fair? This isn't a morality issue, its a welfare, Socio-Economic issue.
Its great that you share your wealth, most wouldn't. I believe govt. is neccesary to protect and help all citizens. Everyone deserves a decent standard of living and govt. is the structure humanity has created to help make that a reality. Its far from perfect, infact often quite the opposite. But its there for a reason. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Well, I can see how a yacht is a luxury, but who are you or I or anyone to tell someone else what they do and don't need or want? That's freedom, like it or not. Furthermore, it sounds more like jealousy--on the one hand you say that those people don't need the yacht, and on the other you say that everybody deserves a decadent lifestyle. So which is it? If everyone 'deserves' a yacht, why doesn't the guy who can actually afford one deserve it? I don't get it.
And I strongly disagree with your statement that everyone 'deserves' a decadent standard of living and that it's somehow the role of the government to ensure that it happens. How do you propose to accomplish that? Somebody has to pay for it if others want to sit back and have a free ride. The entitlement mentality is a major part of what's wrong with society. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
...
Also, isn't taxation, and therefore the redistribution of wealth essentially a morality issue the way that you argue it? the rich, help the poor is an argument that tries to prey on people's emotions and feelings of morality, as if it's their civic duty to help those who have less than them. Just because someone has more money than you do, doesn't mean that you have a rightful claim to their wealth. So a guy wants to buy another yacht--are you telling me that simply because you can't also buy a yacht that you are entitled to his? That somehow he hasn't earned it since he paid for it, but that you somehow have a more rightful claim to it than he does? I just can't see it that way, it's illogical.
... |
illogical perhaps, in your mind, but there is a point in time where one *truly* rich person's accrued wealth comes to a rediculously high amount. an amount where there is no need for you to ever need to earn more, or buy half the things you might. thats neither a good thing nor a bad thing.
taxing the rich more isnt as much of a morality play in my eyes, its just realism. in most cases the truly rich would still be able to spend and afford anything they wanted - but any money that might be squandered but was put into (meager) taxes for them and put towards better programs for everyone isnt a good idea?
the upper rich complain about and get taxes lowered because they have the money to do so. the bitching has nothing to do with how much tax they are actually responsible for - as i would assume percentage-wise taxes count against the earnings of the middle class and poor more.
basically, taxing the rich is like dumbass insurance. better for recouping wasted money - in an ideal govt of course, yet another prob| |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I would have no problem with taxing the rich and giving to the poor, in such a Robin Hood-esque manner if it were not for one thing. There is absolutely no reason a person cannot move themself upwards when it comes to income through hard work.
Say what you might about this country, but the ability of hard work and determination to move you up in life is still a reality. I don't care where you come from in life, the possiblity to set yourself, or at least your progeny, up for success when it comes to economic gain is not a dream.
My great grandparents came from Italy with literally nothing but the shirts on their backs. My grandfather was able to go to college on a scholarship, and my father was later able to go to medical school. Now I myself am on the way to becoming a doctor. My family literally went from absolutely nothing to "well-off" in less than two generations.
Nothing is in the way of other people ability to do the same thing. As I said before, hard work and success should not be punished, because everyone has the opporotunity to work hard and have the same success. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well, I can see how a yacht is a luxury, but who are you or I or anyone to tell someone else what they do and don't need or want? That's freedom, like it or not. Furthermore, it sounds more like jealousy--on the one hand you say that those people don't need the yacht, and on the other you say that everybody deserves a decadent lifestyle. So which is it? If everyone 'deserves' a yacht, why doesn't the guy who can actually afford one deserve it? I don't get it.
And I strongly disagree with your statement that everyone 'deserves' a decadent standard of living and that it's somehow the role of the government to ensure that it happens. How do you propose to accomplish that? Somebody has to pay for it if others want to sit back and have a free ride. The entitlement mentality is a major part of what's wrong with society. |
I said Decent not decadent, you misread. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYGblue
I said Decent not decadent, you misread. |
Woops! My bad. However I still don't think the role of government is to make sure everyone is well off, has a job, earns a decent living, etc. Nobody owes anyone a living--it is the duty of the person to make their own decisions and to choose their own career path, etc. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Woops! My bad. However I still don't think the role of government is to make sure everyone is well off, has a job, earns a decent living, etc. Nobody owes anyone a living--it is the duty of the person to make their own decisions and to choose their own career path, etc. |
Id agree with you in a perfect world. But its far from it. LBJ had a good plan IMO. Too bad that bitch Vietnam came along. |
|
|
|
|
