Shrink the Rich; Not Government

[Sallow]

OK then. First of all, congrats on your success. Why don't you start the ball rolling by turning over 90% of your income to the government? How many poor people could you have fed instead of giving yourself a rather decadent bathroom and kitchen? I only ask because you seem to feel that other Americans should do so. You should be willing to do no less than you would ask from a fellow American, no?

Line item tax return?

I like that idea. Okay..I will do that..if I can opt out of paying for 11 carrier groups..2 ongoing wars and over 700 bases world wide...600 of which we probably don't need.

Deal?

Sure, why not? Your particular drop in the bucket goes only towards whatever causes triphammers your fuzzy little liberal heart.

It's a nice pipe dream..but it really wouldn't work out so great in practice. California being a fine example of direct Democracy in terms of taxes.

 

[georgephillip]

Any reason you can't get off your ass and work?

Been there.
Done that.
Really sucked at it.

So why should everyone else have to pay for your failure?

You been on vacation?

Nope. I work for a living. Try it sometime.

I was working before you were born.

And I'm still not brainwashed enough to think I was ever compensated fully for my labor.

I'm sure you are.

 

[daveman]

Lie? Reagan used government to break the Air Traffic Controller Union. No lie..just your ignorance of history.

Psssst! "Unions" =/= "union".

No..Unions.

After the Government essentially took away the right to strike..it had a chilling effect on all other Unions.

There haven't been many strikes since then..

Riiiight.

 

[Sallow]

daveman works for the government.

Even better!

I work in the private sector and he works in the public sector.

The irony of that...

Really? Are you one of those idiots who thinks the military spending is socialism?

That wouldn't surprise me much, actually.

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

 

[daveman]

Lemme guess. You are a grandson of Sam Walton..

Nope. I'm a grandson of a farmer and carpenter. My financial status is due strictly to my effort. I've inherited nothing but some keepsakes of no financial worth and some great memories.

Well good on you and congrats.

Nothing wrong with hard work. I am a big advocate for it.

 

[daveman]

Been there.
Done that.
Really sucked at it.

So why should everyone else have to pay for your failure?

You been on vacation?

Nope. I work for a living. Try it sometime.

I was working before you were born.

And I'm still not brainwashed enough to think I was ever compensated fully for my labor.

I'm sure you are.

Sooo...what kept you from negotiating better compensation for your effort?

Again: Nothing.

Your current situation is no one's fault but your own. Stop blaming others and insisting they pay you because you failed.

 

[daveman]

Even better!

I work in the private sector and he works in the public sector.

The irony of that...

Really? Are you one of those idiots who thinks the military spending is socialism?

That wouldn't surprise me much, actually.

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

Yeah there is a difference. But he is a person who wants you to think there isn't.

Socialism is seen as evil and with good reasons. It is evil. If he tries to argue for it on it's merits while being completely honest, he loses.

However, if he succeeds at decieving enough people into thinking socialism has some good sides to it and blurs the lines alittle between reality and fantasy, well he might be able to get some of it passed.

This is probably why I like exactness.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What's keeping him from giving more of his money to the government voluntarily?

Hint: Nothing.

Absolutely. And if you watch the program that's linked in the thread you'll see that he and the other super rich guys featured in the program, Ted Turner and Bill Gates are in fact giving away billions, but that's not the point.

The point is unfair taxes where the average middle class Joe pays about 30% and those making upper 7 and 8 figures are paying around 16%. The reason? The amount of influence that can be purchased in congress for 2% to 5% of the income of the upper 5%.

If you believe that the very wealthy should only pay 16% while the middle class pays 30% then you think that the current tax code is fair and this is the point where we disagree. If, on the other hand, we agree that the current code is patently unfair, the next step in the discussion is how to fix it.

Where do we stand, Dave?

I don't know where "we" stand. I stand where you can't tax a nation into prosperity. I stand where I'm not envious of what others have and insisting they give some of it to me.

Where do you stand, Joe?

I believe that the current tax code in America is overly complex and patently unfair. I believe it is designed to be complex to keep lawyers and accountants employed because they have good lobbyists and I believe that it is unfair because the wealthiest 5% in this country can afford better lobbyists than the lawyers and accountants can.

I also believe that in spite of it all, there is no other place I'd rather call home.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? Are you one of those idiots who thinks the military spending is socialism?

That wouldn't surprise me much, actually.

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

You left out all the non-military government employees.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would think that if the government has the right to draft a citizen into the military and send him off to die for 'the greater good',

than it's hardly unreasonable that the government might asked a larger financial contribution to 'the greater good' from those in the country who can most easily afford it.

 

[daveman]

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

Yeah there is a difference. But he is a person who wants you to think there isn't.

He's going to be disappointed...because I CAN think, and therefore do not buy what he's selling.

Socialism is seen as evil and with good reasons. It is evil. If he tries to argue for it on it's merits while being completely honest, he loses.

However, if he succeeds at decieving enough people into thinking socialism has some good sides to it and blurs the lines alittle between reality and fantasy, well he might be able to get some of it passed.

This is probably why I like exactness.

Incrementalism. It's the only way to get the leftist agenda passed without violence and bloodshed, the historical means of enacting it.

 

[daveman]

Absolutely. And if you watch the program that's linked in the thread you'll see that he and the other super rich guys featured in the program, Ted Turner and Bill Gates are in fact giving away billions, but that's not the point.

The point is unfair taxes where the average middle class Joe pays about 30% and those making upper 7 and 8 figures are paying around 16%. The reason? The amount of influence that can be purchased in congress for 2% to 5% of the income of the upper 5%.

If you believe that the very wealthy should only pay 16% while the middle class pays 30% then you think that the current tax code is fair and this is the point where we disagree. If, on the other hand, we agree that the current code is patently unfair, the next step in the discussion is how to fix it.

Where do we stand, Dave?

I don't know where "we" stand. I stand where you can't tax a nation into prosperity. I stand where I'm not envious of what others have and insisting they give some of it to me.

Where do you stand, Joe?

I believe that the current tax code in America is overly complex and patently unfair. I believe it is designed to be complex to keep lawyers and accountants employed because they have good lobbyists and I believe that it is unfair because the wealthiest 5% in this country can afford better lobbyists than the lawyers and accountants can.

I also believe that in spite of it all, there is no other place I'd rather call home.

I agree with all that (especially your last sentence), although our reasons for calling it unfair are probably different.

There is no reason a sane and workable tax code can't fit on 2 pages, tops.

 

[daveman]

Well since it is..by definition socialism..yep. And it's not idiotic. Not any more idiotic then thinking spending on the Post Office is socialism too. As well as Medicare.

There is a difference between the military and, day, welfare, which is undeniably socialism.

The military member earns his pay and benefits. The welfare recipient does not.

You left out all the non-military government employees.

We weren't speaking of them, were we?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't know where "we" stand. I stand where you can't tax a nation into prosperity. I stand where I'm not envious of what others have and insisting they give some of it to me.

Where do you stand, Joe?

I believe that the current tax code in America is overly complex and patently unfair. I believe it is designed to be complex to keep lawyers and accountants employed because they have good lobbyists and I believe that it is unfair because the wealthiest 5% in this country can afford better lobbyists than the lawyers and accountants can.

I also believe that in spite of it all, there is no other place I'd rather call home.

I agree with all that (especially your last sentence), although our reasons for calling it unfair are probably different.

There is no reason a sane and workable tax code can't fit on 2 pages, tops.

I find it down right embarrassing that We, The People collect taxes on a retail level - Imagine how much money we'd save on the IRS bureaucracy alone if we instead collected on the wholesale level.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[daveman]

I believe that the current tax code in America is overly complex and patently unfair. I believe it is designed to be complex to keep lawyers and accountants employed because they have good lobbyists and I believe that it is unfair because the wealthiest 5% in this country can afford better lobbyists than the lawyers and accountants can.

I also believe that in spite of it all, there is no other place I'd rather call home.

I agree with all that (especially your last sentence), although our reasons for calling it unfair are probably different.

There is no reason a sane and workable tax code can't fit on 2 pages, tops.

I find it down right embarrassing that We, The People collect taxes on a retail level - Imagine how much money we'd save on the IRS bureaucracy alone if we instead collected on the wholesale level.

Indeed. I like pointing out to those who demonize BIGOIL that government makes more money on a gallon of gas than BIGOIL does.

 

[daveman]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Dood. It's not like they've given this a moment's clear thought. They operate solely on emotion.

 

[georgephillip]

So why should everyone else have to pay for your failure?

Nope. I work for a living. Try it sometime.

I was working before you were born.

And I'm still not brainwashed enough to think I was ever compensated fully for my labor.

I'm sure you are.

Sooo...what kept you from negotiating better compensation for your effort?

Again: Nothing.

Your current situation is no one's fault but your own. Stop blaming others and insisting they pay you because you failed.

How many jobs in the private sector have you held?

Ever been fired for trying to negotiate better compensation for voting to join a union?

 

[georgephillip]

If there were no rich people, there would be no companies. If there were no companies, you wouldn't have a job. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Two-thirds of all jobs in the US are created AND destroyed by small businesses.

No rich people needed.