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

[Vast LWC]

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

And, as for this, my point was that richer folks, who benefit more from infrastructure and use more resources, should pay for that privilege through more taxes.

In my opinion, a flat tax percentage, with all other taxes included, including capital gains, should about cover it.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

And basic human kindness has worked for years. Private donations by US citizens is matched by no other country in the world, so as I see it, basic human kindness is not only obvious in the US, but it is treated as a moral obligation.
We should be proud.

 

[Jarhead]

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

And, as for this, my point was that richer folks, who benefit more from infrastructure and use more resources, should pay for that privilege through more taxes.

In my opinion, a flat tax percentage, with all other taxes included, including capital gains, should about cover it.

Not a sarcastic question; instead, I really would like your take. How do you see it that richer folks benefit more from infrastructure?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I am entitled to benefit from resources and infrastructure that I, along with you, support with my taxes. All citizens are. That is not the principle being debated here yet.

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

You may or may not be in any kind of need but that is also irrelevent to the question. But since I am retiring and winding down my small business, you are probably right that you are far more affluent than I am, you pay more in taxes, and you are not in need of any form of welfare.

By comparison I am probably very poor.

We both benefit from shared resources and infrastructure to which we both contribute.

What principle would you use to entitle me to take addition property or resources from you based on the fact that you have much more than I do?

 

[Vast LWC]

Not a sarcastic question; instead, I really would like your take. How do you see it that richer folks benefit more from infrastructure?

Richer folks generally gain the majority of their income from capital gains, through stocks, etc.

The corporations that provide those capital gains use roads, trains, airports, etc, in a much greater amount than the average American.

In addition, they benefit from the protection of the military, police, fire departments etc, much more than the average person. Case in point would be military intervention to protect overseas business interests.

Finally, corporations use a much larger percentage of US natural resources than the average Joe: oil, iron, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that the average person makes no use of these resources, but corporations benefit from them at a higher percentage.

As direct beneficiaries of the proceeds from these corporations, the rich, while not directly using these resources, are definitely benefitting financially from their use, which works out to be the same thing in the end.

 

[Jarhead]

Not a sarcastic question; instead, I really would like your take. How do you see it that richer folks benefit more from infrastructure?

Richer folks generally gain the majority of their income from capital gains, through stocks, etc.

The corporations that provide those capital gains use roads, trains, airports, etc, in a much greater amount than the average American.

In addition, they benefit from the protection of the military, police, fire departments etc, much more than the average person. Case in point would be military intervention to protect overseas business interests.

Finally, corporations use a much larger percentage of US natural resources than the average Joe: oil, iron, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that the average person makes no use of these resources, but corporations benefit from them at a higher percentage.

As direct beneficiaries of the proceeds from these corporations, the rich, while not directly using these resources, are definitely benefitting financially from their use, which works out to be the same thing in the end.

VERY interesting sumnmation and one with much validity.

However, putting aside capital gains, the rest can be seen differently. BECUASE those coporations have such porotection, Americans have the goods and services of said corporation; which is why they protect them. They do not do it for the business owners. They do it for Americans in general.

Do you see my side?

 

[Vast LWC]

I am entitled to benefit from resources and infrastructure that I, along with you, support with my taxes. All citizens are. That is not the principle being debated here yet.

Oh, but it is, in fact that was the premise of the OP.

My point is that one should pay taxes in direct relation to the use of the resources used.

You may or may not be in any kind of need but that is also irrelevent to the question. But since I am retiring and winding down my small business, you are probably right that you are far more affluent than I am, you pay more in taxes, and you are not in need of any form of welfare.

By comparison I am probably very poor.

We both benefit from shared resources and infrastructure to which we both contribute.

What principle would you use to entitle me to take addition property or resources from you based on the fact that you have much more than I do?

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes in relation to resources that I make use of.

I have no issue with the rate at which I currently pay taxes, and feel that a minimum social safety net should be provided to help folks who are down on their luck. I feel, as I said, that it is a moral imperative to make sure this happens.

Many people feel that this safety net is either unnecessary, or should be provided through private means. I feel that when it is provided through private means, the funds don't necessarily arrive where they are needed the most, but are often distributed unevenly to areas of the population that are favored by the donors.

 

[Vast LWC]

VERY interesting sumnmation and one with much validity.

However, putting aside capital gains, the rest can be seen differently. BECUASE those coporations have such porotection, Americans have the goods and services of said corporation; which is why they protect them. They do not do it for the business owners. They do it for Americans in general.

Do you see my side?

I do indeed, and there is validity to that statement.

My point was that business owners and investors benefit more than the average person, not that people aren't benefitting in general, which I agree, they are.

Which is why, instead of a graduated income tax, I favor a flat tax rate, a percentage that includes payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, etc.

 

[California Girl]

Not a sarcastic question; instead, I really would like your take. How do you see it that richer folks benefit more from infrastructure?

Richer folks generally gain the majority of their income from capital gains, through stocks, etc.

The corporations that provide those capital gains use roads, trains, airports, etc, in a much greater amount than the average American.

In addition, they benefit from the protection of the military, police, fire departments etc, much more than the average person. Case in point would be military intervention to protect overseas business interests.

Finally, corporations use a much larger percentage of US natural resources than the average Joe: oil, iron, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that the average person makes no use of these resources, but corporations benefit from them at a higher percentage.

As direct beneficiaries of the proceeds from these corporations, the rich, while not directly using these resources, are definitely benefitting financially from their use, which works out to be the same thing in the end.

Why is it that when we talk about poor people, we hear all these desperately sad, individual stories of struggle and shit, and when we talk about the 'rich', it is fine to lump them into one large borglike structure sucking the blood out of the hardworking poor.

What total, utter crap.

 

[Misty]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

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.

are you talking oprah rich or 250k a year rich? Because there is a big difference between being mega super rich or just having enough money to afford nice things.

The people getting screwed are the ones that can affiord nice things yet pay high taxes because instead of getting the nice things, they have to pay high taxes and get screwed

 

[Vast LWC]

Why is it that when we talk about poor people, we hear all these desperately sad, individual stories of struggle and shit, and when we talk about the 'rich', it is fine to lump them into one large borglike structure sucking the blood out of the hardworking poor.

What total, utter crap.

And when did I say that, exactly?

Just because I think that one's contribution to one's society should be proportional to what they take from society, how does that translate into, "the rich are all evil"?

I have never made any blanket statement of the sort.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am entitled to benefit from resources and infrastructure that I, along with you, support with my taxes. All citizens are. That is not the principle being debated here yet.

Oh, but it is, in fact that was the premise of the OP.

My point is that one should pay taxes in direct relation to the use of the resources used.

You may or may not be in any kind of need but that is also irrelevent to the question. But since I am retiring and winding down my small business, you are probably right that you are far more affluent than I am, you pay more in taxes, and you are not in need of any form of welfare.

By comparison I am probably very poor.

We both benefit from shared resources and infrastructure to which we both contribute.

What principle would you use to entitle me to take addition property or resources from you based on the fact that you have much more than I do?

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes in relation to resources that I make use of.

I have no issue with the rate at which I currently pay taxes, and feel that a minimum social safety net should be provided to help folks who are down on their luck. I feel, as I said, that it is a moral imperative to make sure this happens.

Many people feel that this safety net is either unnecessary, or should be provided through private means. I feel that when it is provided through private means, the funds don't necessarily arrive where they are needed the most, but are often distributed unevenly to areas of the population that are favored by the donors.

So are you or are you not saying that I am entitled to what you earn? I have lots less. So how much of what you earn should I get? I can send you an address of where to send the check.

Having spent most of my adult life in vocations or avocations working to help the poor in various ways, I can assure you that private assistance to the poor is far more effective and valuable than anything being dispensed by the federal or even state governments.

What objection do you have with public assistance being removed from the Federal government where at least 1/3 and sometimes much more is swallowed up by the bureaucracy or corrupt recipients and rather placing it with the states, local communities, and the private sector?

 

[Vast LWC]

So are you or are you not saying that I am entitled to what you earn? I have lots less. So how much of what you earn should I get? I can send you an address of where to send the check.

Having spent most of my adult life in vocations or avocations working to help the poor in various ways, I can assure you that private assistance to the poor is far more effective and valuable than anything being dispensed by the federal or even state governments.

What objection do you have with public assistance being removed from the Federal government where at least 1/3 and sometimes much more is swallowed up by the bureaucracy or corrupt recipients and rather placing it with the states, local communities, and the private sector?

The objection I have is this:

When charities are at a local level or done by private industry, favoritism occurs.

So, when a private charity operating in the town of Smallville is doling out their funds, they are going to give it to some poor family down the block, while a horde of starving people in the next state die of starvation.



And I am not saying people are entitled to what other people earn. I am saying that if I am using resources that belong to the both of us, than you deserve a share of the profits from those resources.

For instance, let's say I found an oil well that straddled both of our backyards. I asked you to borrow your truck, and I used it to bring equipment to my backyard to tap the oil.

Now, do you think that you might deserve a small share of the profits, even though it was me who did the work?

 

[California Girl]

So are you or are you not saying that I am entitled to what you earn? I have lots less. So how much of what you earn should I get? I can send you an address of where to send the check.

Having spent most of my adult life in vocations or avocations working to help the poor in various ways, I can assure you that private assistance to the poor is far more effective and valuable than anything being dispensed by the federal or even state governments.

What objection do you have with public assistance being removed from the Federal government where at least 1/3 and sometimes much more is swallowed up by the bureaucracy or corrupt recipients and rather placing it with the states, local communities, and the private sector?

The objection I have is this:

When charities are at a local level or done by private industry, favoritism occurs.

So, when a private charity operating in the town of Smallville is doling out their funds, they are going to give it to some poor family down the block, while a horde of starving people in the next state die of starvation.



And I am not saying people are entitled to what other people earn. I am saying that if I am using resources that belong to the both of us, than you deserve a share of the profits from those resources.

For instance, let's say I found an oil well that straddled both of our backyards. I asked you to borrow your truck, and I used it to bring equipment to my backyard to tap the oil.

Now, do you think that you might deserve a small share of the profits, even though it was me who did the work?

In what state of the USA are people starving to death?

 

[Misty]

There are 3 main places where our tax money goes
1 social security
2 military
3 foreign aid.

So no, the rich do not even come close to benefitting the most from taxes.

 

[California Girl]

Why is it that when we talk about poor people, we hear all these desperately sad, individual stories of struggle and shit, and when we talk about the 'rich', it is fine to lump them into one large borglike structure sucking the blood out of the hardworking poor.

What total, utter crap.

And when did I say that, exactly?

Just because I think that one's contribution to one's society should be proportional to what they take from society, how does that translate into, "the rich are all evil"?

I have never made any blanket statement of the sort.

I didn't accuse you of having made such a blanket statement. It was a comment on the back of yours.

People tend to talk about the 'rich' as though the rich do not deserve wealth. They assume all wealthy people are selfish, uncaring and achieve wealth on the backs of poor people. This crap is repeated time and time again - certainly the OP has commented on such. My point.... 'rich' people are people - just like 'poor' people are people. We should treat people as individuals. When the healthcare debate was raging, we saw lots and lots of sad stories about individuals let down by the system. Well, there are also vast numbers of people whose lives were saved by that same system. It is the same with the constant debate about the inequality of 'rich' and 'poor'. I feel no need to apologize for coming from a 'wealthy' background. I'm not ashamed of the blood, sweat and tears of my parents. They have sacrificed and worked hard and because of that, they are what most people would deem 'wealthy'. But, instead of respecting someone like my dad for achieving the 'American Dream', apparently some people think he should pay for the rest of you.

 

[Vast LWC]

In what state of the USA are people starving to death?

None, thanks to federal food stamp programs, etc.

 

[Jarhead]

VERY interesting sumnmation and one with much validity.

However, putting aside capital gains, the rest can be seen differently. BECUASE those coporations have such porotection, Americans have the goods and services of said corporation; which is why they protect them. They do not do it for the business owners. They do it for Americans in general.

Do you see my side?

I do indeed, and there is validity to that statement.

My point was that business owners and investors benefit more than the average person, not that people aren't benefitting in general, which I agree, they are.

Which is why, instead of a graduated income tax, I favor a flat tax rate, a percentage that includes payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, etc.

AN interesting take on the subject and one that I am not so readily to disagree with. I need to do some thinking on this beofre I tell you that you are nuts or tell you that you are right.

I will admit, however, that I never saw it from that standpoint. It is worth the time to think about it.

That is what debate is all about by the way. A way to see it from all perspectives.

Sadly, many see debate as a way to make others look foolish.

Thanks. I'll get back to you.

 

[Vast LWC]

AN interesting take on the subject and one that I am not so readily to disagree with. I need to do some thinking on this beofre I tell you that you are nuts or tell you that you are right.

I will admit, however, that I never saw it from that standpoint. It is worth the time to think about it.

That is what debate is all about by the way. A way to see it from all perspectives.

Sadly, many see debate as a way to make others look foolish.

Thanks. I'll get back to you.

And your point was a good one as well, it did in fact sway me a bit myself.

 

[Foxfyre]

So are you or are you not saying that I am entitled to what you earn? I have lots less. So how much of what you earn should I get? I can send you an address of where to send the check.

Having spent most of my adult life in vocations or avocations working to help the poor in various ways, I can assure you that private assistance to the poor is far more effective and valuable than anything being dispensed by the federal or even state governments.

What objection do you have with public assistance being removed from the Federal government where at least 1/3 and sometimes much more is swallowed up by the bureaucracy or corrupt recipients and rather placing it with the states, local communities, and the private sector?

The objection I have is this:

When charities are at a local level or done by private industry, favoritism occurs.

So, when a private charity operating in the town of Smallville is doling out their funds, they are going to give it to some poor family down the block, while a horde of starving people in the next state die of starvation.



And I am not saying people are entitled to what other people earn. I am saying that if I am using resources that belong to the both of us, than you deserve a share of the profits from those resources.

For instance, let's say I found an oil well that straddled both of our backyards. I asked you to borrow your truck, and I used it to bring equipment to my backyard to tap the oil.

Now, do you think that you might deserve a small share of the profits, even though it was me who did the work?

Yes. Charity does begin at home and when it is administered from home it goes to people who obviously need it. So if Smallville takes care of its own, why should Smallville be responsible also for those folks in the next state? Shouldn't the more affluent in that next state also be taking care of their own. And so forth?

Evenso, I have also been involved in hands on work gathering funds, clothing, and other resources to help with distant disasters and famines, and I helped make sure those got into the hands of private charities that we could trust to get the stuff to the people who needed it. Too often government contributions simply go to other governments and too often the people never see a whole lot of that or sometimes any of it. I concentrate my charitable giving to agencies who receive no federal funds at all except that the Salvation Army does get United Way funds and those include a miniscule amount of federal funding--the Army wouldn't miss it if it was eliminated.

Americans are the most generous people on Earth and even if you take the government out of it entirely, nobody will starve in this country who does not choose to starve.

As for that shared oil well, I doubt you would volunteer your truck if we had not had some prior agreement as to how the profits would be shared and how the expenses would be handled. That has nothing to do with charity but it does have everything to do with social contract which is a whole different thing.

And I am glad to know that you don't think I am entitled to what you earn. That's a huge step forward in achieving social sanity.