Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Wry Catcher]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

IYO perhaps, IMO there is.

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

We disagree on this point of course, but both points of view do in fact have justifications.

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

Hey dude, have you ever taken a college course in ethics? In all honesty you're one ignorant person.

 

[Intense]

I'm still waiting for these proggressives/Marxists to point out how they feel they are entitled to that which they have not earned.

Can I get You a pillow???

 

[saveliberty]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

IYO perhaps, IMO there is.

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

We disagree on this point of course, but both points of view do in fact have justifications.

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

Indeed, by this logic you can infer that by hindering, destroying or otherwise using up the means of production you should be entitled to even more of that production. Yet, where is the moral or ethical justification for being unproductive.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Because we understand that thievery is thievery, no matter how you dress it up or rationalize it as "fairness".

typical lying spin, claim its stolen money, even though those paying it get benefits from it

And so do those who pay nothing into it... hence the thievery

 

[edthecynic]

Because no one else owns anything right?

Typical Straw Man.

The word MORE does not imply no one else owns anything. It just means they have more than those who have less.
In a true "Capitalistic" system the taxes should be based on capital assets rather than income.
What do you think the taxes in a Capitalistic system should be based on?

Just because some people own more does not mean they get more protection of ownership rights. The guy who owns nothing but his home has his ownership rights protected just as vigorously as the rich dude who owns 5 houses.

So do you believe that the Blacker one is, the more they benefit from the civil rights movement?

If it's not one Straw Man it's another.

The person who acquires the most capital assets BENEFITS most from the CAPITALISTIC system.
In a Capitalistic system there should be a Flat tax on capital assets, other wise it is not a Capitalistic system.

 

[edthecynic]

And if corporations and their shareholders (the rich) don't want to pay taxes anymore, well they can feel free to provide their own roads, protection and education for their own workers.

Lets see how that works out.

I'll go ya one better.. let's let the people who pay zero in federal taxes provide their own roads, education, food, homes, and doctors,, how's that work for ya???

Which people would those be?

As far as I know, everyone pays payroll tax, and since that has been being used as tax money for decades now instead of being set aside in the SS fund...

There is no payroll tax on capital gains.

 

[Stainmaster]

And if corporations and their shareholders (the rich) don't want to pay taxes anymore, well they can feel free to provide their own roads, protection and education for their own workers.

Lets see how that works out.

I'll go ya one better.. let's let the people who pay zero in federal taxes provide their own roads, education, food, homes, and doctors,, how's that work for ya???

Take one company I happen to know a little about, United Air Lines. United had its most profitable years during the Viet Nam war flying American troops over to protect the interests of Shell Oil. United also, has/does receive subsidies for providing service to unprofitable routes, and to promote themselves overseas against air carriers owned by other governments. This company is always broke with it's hand out to Uncle Sam while the executives live and travel like kings. United's unions are always being asked to make sacrifices for the good of the company.

Well, see there I go on a rant. United Air Lines, I join the crowd in Southern California who has to listen to aircraft flying a few hundred feet overhead landing at LAX. Then we have the blight of big 'near the airport' office buildings that have replaced some fine old neighborhoods.

United's CEO along with others should be tied to a tree in Inglewood all night to listen, and see what the neighbors might do. Sorry dancing off topic, but I can bring it around. I just hate these bastards for what they have done in our community. What is the rush for all these important people to jet somewhere? Then they advertise to promote more air travel. It is greed ladies and gents, pure greed. All those wonderful stockholders who own money machines like United Air Lines love to talk about American investment opportunities, and the rest of us be damned. Mine is not an indictment of the free-enterprise system, which I support. Not all companies are as compassionate as Halliburton or Microsoft.

 

[Oddball]

IYO perhaps, IMO there is.

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

We disagree on this point of course, but both points of view do in fact have justifications.

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

Hey dude, have you ever taken a college course in ethics? In all honesty you're one ignorant person.

Pretty pathetic attempt at misdirection.

Maybe you could take a crack at a direct answer to the question, eh?

 

[Some Guy]

I may be mistaken, but doesnt a progressive tax increase only count towards the amount above the cutoff? So you still pay 20% on the first 100k and 25% on that one cent over the limit.

At least thats how it should work.

I think you're right. I had a brain fart that day. Nonetheless, the more you're taxed for success, the more it acts as a detourant.

To me, it makes the most sense to tax consumption, thus those who consume the most pay the most in taxes.

Though i'd like to address the idea that rich people/employers benefit more from a sound infrastructure. To make it easy, we'll consider a company that makes candy bars and ships them all over the nation for sale. While you could say that the roads being accesses by the company on the owner's behalf is definitely greater than the common truck driver, you can't possibly make the argument that the truck driver doesn't benefit as well. In other words, you could look at it from the bottom up. If not for the infrastructure, there would be no way for someone to be able to drive a truck, thus there would be no way for someone to coordinate those truck drivers' routes, thus there would be no way for someone to design and perfect a product to be shipped, thus there would be no way for someone to direct all the below activities.

So, let's not act like employers/rich people get there on their own while the middle/lower classes are totally innocent. On the rich employer's way, he/she has a host of others who help him/her along the way, but in turn, those workers are helped by being paid a wage for their services. Without the employers, there are no employees. And if you want to make the argument than an employee would simply step into the void to become an employer, then said employee is no longer an employee is he? He becomes one of the rich employers and thus subject to the higher charges on production that many here are trying to justify.

 

[Intense]

I'll go ya one better.. let's let the people who pay zero in federal taxes provide their own roads, education, food, homes, and doctors,, how's that work for ya???

Which people would those be?

As far as I know, everyone pays payroll tax, and since that has been being used as tax money for decades now instead of being set aside in the SS fund...

There is no payroll tax on capital gains.

That would be a double tax now, wouldn't it?

 

[Intense]

And if corporations and their shareholders (the rich) don't want to pay taxes anymore, well they can feel free to provide their own roads, protection and education for their own workers.

Lets see how that works out.

I'll go ya one better.. let's let the people who pay zero in federal taxes provide their own roads, education, food, homes, and doctors,, how's that work for ya???

Take one company I happen to know a little about, United Air Lines. United had its most profitable years during the Viet Nam war flying American troops over to protect the interests of Shell Oil. United also, has/does receive subsidies for providing service to unprofitable routes, and to promote themselves overseas against air carriers owned by other governments. This company is always broke with it's hand out to Uncle Sam while the executives live and travel like kings. United's unions are always being asked to make sacrifices for the good of the company.

Well, see there I go on a rant. United Air Lines, I join the crowd in Southern California who has to listen to aircraft flying a few hundred feet overhead landing at LAX. Then we have the blight of big 'near the airport' office buildings that have replaced some fine old neighborhoods.

United's CEO along with others should be tied to a tree in Inglewood all night to listen, and see what the neighbors might do. Sorry dancing off topic, but I can bring it around. I just hate these bastards for what they have done in our community. What is the rush for all these important people to jet somewhere? Then they advertise to promote more air travel. It is greed ladies and gents, pure greed. All those wonderful stockholders who own money machines like United Air Lines love to talk about American investment opportunities, and the rest of us be damned. Mine is not an indictment of the free-enterprise system, which I support. Not all companies are as compassionate as Halliburton or Microsoft.

Who regulates the Airlines Stainmaster? LOL

I can sympathize with you, I live about 2 miles from LaGuardia. You might want to redirect some of that anger towards the FAA. LOL

 

[Vast LWC]

What does taxing production have to do with using more resources?

Oh, and you've still failed to give any moral justification for taxing useful production.

Much of wealth gathering has nothing to do with useful production.

Wall Street has essentially become a casino, where investments are no longer made in companies that people believe in, but instead investors just look for whatever stock is on the rise for almost completely random reasons.

Many of the wealthiest corporations are predatory holding firms that are in fact counterproductive.

My point is that the richer you are, the more you benefit from the countries infrastructure and resources, and therefore the more you should pay in taxes to provide upkeep for same.

Now, that being said, I believe my real flat tax plan will cover these contingencies, as it is a flat percentage of income, rather than a flat amount.

Total...Unmitigated...Crap.

You have learned your Marxism and class envy well, though.

Now you're not even making sense Dude.

First of all, I'm espousing a flat tax, and that's Marxism?

Second of all, what part of the post is crap, exactly?

Are there not major holding corporations that go around buying up and borrowing against corporations, and then selling them off again after putting them in debt? Are these companies not some of the wealthiest around?

What part of that is not true? Hmm??

Is the majority of trading on Wall Street based on the individual corporation's daily performance? If it is not, then what are the wild fluctuations that go on every day based on, hmmm?

Just because you've drank a healthy amount of the Super-Capitalist Kool-Aid, and believe that corporations are run by saints and can do no wrong doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you a "Marxist".

 

[Vast LWC]

But that is what so many on the Left have been taught, indoctrinated with, or otherwise conditioned to believe. They honestly think that nobody should have to suffer the consequences of choosing to fail and nobody, except the Annointed One, deserves reward for success.

The theme so often is that the rich must have gotten there through dishonest and/or oppressive greed or via pure undulturated luck (i.e. the stock market) and they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from that.

And then we see that those who use the most resources should pay the most taxes. As if they don't already? It's just more of the mantra that the more productive people are, the more of their earnings should be confiscated.

It's nuts.

No-one taught or indoctrinated any of this into me. I came to these logical conclusions all by my lonesome.

Business Schools are run by conservatives, and the classes there are taught by conservatives. Economics classes are generally also taught by conservatives.

Thus if anyone has been "indoctrinated", it would be you folks.

 

[Vast LWC]

The they carry on as though those who benefited by either gaming the system or by outright blind luck are the norm, by which to justify punishing 99% of the people who busted their asses to build a business or even have a way-above-average job working for someone else.

That's not nuts, that's plain old tiny and pathetic.

Well, that's an interesting statistic, it's also unmitigated bullshit, but interesting nonetheless.

I assume you have ANY sort of proof to back up that number? Any proof at all?

According to what you're saying:

99% of the people in the nation are just "little guys" who came from meager backgrounds, but "busted their asses" to form a company, or get into a high position in a company, that actually produces something useful.

That is what you're saying, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

There is no payroll tax on capital gains.

That is true. I was responding to a poster who was saying the poorer half of society pays no taxes.

 

[Vast LWC]

That would be a double tax now, wouldn't it?

How would it be any more of a "double tax" than it is on regular earnings?

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is what so many on the Left have been taught, indoctrinated with, or otherwise conditioned to believe. They honestly think that nobody should have to suffer the consequences of choosing to fail and nobody, except the Annointed One, deserves reward for success.

The theme so often is that the rich must have gotten there through dishonest and/or oppressive greed or via pure undulturated luck (i.e. the stock market) and they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from that.

And then we see that those who use the most resources should pay the most taxes. As if they don't already? It's just more of the mantra that the more productive people are, the more of their earnings should be confiscated.

It's nuts.

No-one taught or indoctrinated any of this into me. I came to these logical conclusions all by my lonesome.

Business Schools are run by conservatives, and the classes there are taught by conservatives. Economics classes are generally also taught by conservatives.

Thus if anyone has been "indoctrinated", it would be you folks.

I wouldn't know as I have not been to business school. I couldn't tell you the ideology of instructors of business classes I have taken as ideology did not factor into those classes in any form or fashion.

If you came to your conclusions--I refuse to call them logical--all by your lonesome, what criteria did you use to arrive at those conclusions?

What law or principle do you use to assume that you are entitled to any property of mine or any income that I earn?

 

[Vast LWC]

I wouldn't know as I have not been to business school. I couldn't tell you the ideology of instructors of business classes I have taken as ideology did not factor into those classes in any form or fashion.

If you came to your conclusions--I refuse to call them logical--all by your lonesome, what criteria did you use to arrive at those conclusions?

What law or principle do you use to assume that you are entitled to any property of mine or any income that I earn?

What law or principle brings you to the conclusion that you should be able to use public resources all you want without paying for them?

And to answer your question, the law or principle that leads me to the conclusion that there should be a safety net to care for the poor or elderly in time of need, is less of a law, and more of a moral imperative. It's called basic human kindness. You should look it up.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wouldn't know as I have not been to business school. I couldn't tell you the ideology of instructors of business classes I have taken as ideology did not factor into those classes in any form or fashion.

If you came to your conclusions--I refuse to call them logical--all by your lonesome, what criteria did you use to arrive at those conclusions?

What law or principle do you use to assume that you are entitled to any property of mine or any income that I earn?

What law or principle brings you to the conclusion that you should be able to use public resources all you want without paying for them?

I have not opposed paying for shared resources/infrastructure and I do without complaining about that in the least.

But focus now. Stick to the question.

What law or principle do you use to assume that you--you Vast LWC--are entitled to any of my--Foxfyre--property or income that I earn?

 

[Vast LWC]

I have not opposed paying for shared resources/infrastructure and I do without complaining about that in the least.

But focus now. Stick to the question.

What law or principle do you use to assume that you--you Vast LWC--are entitled to any of my--Foxfyre--property or income that I earn?

I edited that post to include another line, you may want to look it over again.

But, yes, let's focus. What makes you think that you, FoxFire, are entitled to resources and infrastructure that I, VastLWC also own as a citizen?

And what makes you think that I, VastLWC personally have any need at all of anything from you, FoxFire? I'm on the higher end of the middle class scale, I pay my taxes, and I have no need of any kind of welfare from the government at all.

In fact, since I live in one of the highest population states in our nation, I probably pay more taxes than you and receive less in federal funding.