Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 09:04:52 AM
"with conservative logic, it's now considered an attack on freedom"
How did you come to that conclusion?

Your (plural) own words?  The argument props up against compulsory charity; compulsory being the opposite of freedom, and thus a complaint of it implies a complaint that something attacks freedom.  This isn't very difficult to deduce, you know.

Quote
And show me where the rich, and I don't mean ultra rich, pay an unfair amount in taxes?

They don't.  That's my point.  Well, actually, they pay too little.  See below.

Quote
Like the rest of us, they too pay the same percentage in taxes, just because they have more money, doesn't mean they should be taxed at an increased level, this is class warfare, a Marxist ideal.

Incorrect, and if you'd have actually read over my post we would not be having this conversation right now.  The more wealth you acquire, the more you can afford to proportionally pay while suffering the same setback as one with less wealth who pays proportionally less.  It's the law of diminishing returns.

Quote
Like Maggie said, socialism works just fine, till you run out of other peoples money.

Excellent rhetoric (pot, kettle, black), but really not true, given that taxing the rich more will raise more revenue.  Wealth redistribution does not decrease the net amount of wealth in the system.

Quote
For socialism to succeed, it needs Capitalists to leach from, suck too much from your host, and you kill it.
Raising the tax burden of the rich will simply make them middle class.

Bullshit.  A progressive tax system means that one with lots of money will still have plenty of money after taxes, simply by a small proportion.  A billionare being taxed even 50% is still a billionare; where did you get the idea that they'd become middle class?

Quote
Take an econ class, you really need to understand our system.
Is it fair? Hell no, but show me any other country in the history of the world that was more successful.
Keep in mind, even the poor in this country live like Kings compared to other countries.

Really?   

Nobody is denying that our country is among the most successful and prosperous in human history.  But that does not mean there isn't anything to improve on.  If you admit that the current system is unfair, we should strive to improve it; could you imagine if our ancestors in the 18th century were simply content that they belonged to the most modern and just political system in the Western world (which they did)?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:15:31 AM


Incorrect, and if you'd have actually read over my post we would not be having this conversation right now.  The more wealth you acquire, the more you can afford to proportionally pay while suffering the same setback as one with less wealth who pays proportionally less.  It's the law of diminishing returns.

Wrong.  Since you aren't a fan of freedom and property rights, you don't see wealth as the property of the earner.  As the government bloats and grows, feeding unions and the corrupt, it needs to steal more and more from the earners.  To do so, it needs to make you feel like the earners are bad and don't deserve their wealth, and need to "sacrifice" more, so you support increase in taxes.

Shame on you for not contributing more to our society. You come here to promote more parasitic government, when you should come here and promote freedom.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:00:56 AM
Wrong.  Since you aren't a fan of freedom and property rights, you don't see wealth as the property of the earner.

Your implication here is that the government has no right to take your money.  Except that it does this, every day, and whining about taxation on principle is being incredibly hypocritical if you support any form of taxation.

Since we both agree that taxation is necessary for the maintenance of society, please leave your rant against taxation at the door and simply rant against income taxes, please.

QuoteAs the government bloats and grows, feeding unions and the corrupt, it needs to steal more and more from the earners. 

Implication: that taxation is stealing. 

Red herring: we aren't debating an increase on taxes, but on the ideology of a graduated tax system.  So your whining about the government stealing "more and more" from the earners doesn't fit in here. 

QuoteTo do so, it needs to make you feel like the earners are bad and don't deserve their wealth, and need to "sacrifice" more, so you support increase in taxes.

What are you talking about?  If we felt that the earners don't deserve their wealth, we'd advocate stripping them of it entirely.  Income taxes do nothing of the sort.

And I find it interesting that I am assaulted from several posters of arguing on an emotional basis, yet your opposition to the income tax is basically that it isn't "fair" for the billionaire to have to pay more taxes than the person on the street.  Who cares if it will raise more revenue and increase the national happiness; those poor billionaires are being unfairly persecuted!   

Besides, I've already explained to you (and you entirely ignored my post, instead going off on a completely unrelated mantra) that nothing about the graduated income tax unfairly hurts the rich.  Diminishing returns means that a flat tax would actually unfairly harm the poor.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 11:08:51 AM
Your implication here is that the government has no right to take your money.  Except that it does this, every day, and whining about taxation on principle is being incredibly hypocritical if you support any form of taxation.

When you take from the earner, it is theft, plain and simple.

Quote
Since we both agree that taxation is necessary for the maintenance of society, please leave your rant against taxation at the door and simply rant against income taxes, please.

Yes, I agree income taxes should be eliminated.  Maybe you can learn after all.

Quote
Implication: that taxation is stealing. 

Red herring: we aren't debating an increase on taxes, but on the ideology of a graduated tax system.  So your whining about the government stealing "more and more" from the earners doesn't fit in here. 

It isn't a red herring.  Taxation is theft.  It is taking from the earner by force.  Using propagandist words like "graduated" make you feel better, but you support stealing.

Quote
What are you talking about?  If we felt that the earners don't deserve their wealth, we'd advocate stripping them of it entirely.  Income taxes do nothing of the sort.

You don't pay taxes.  How would you know, or feel the pain as someone like myself does?  Another example of where you feel like you have the insight to discuss this topic, while having no experience on it, while arguing with someone like me who feels pain in paying taxes.  There is a lot of good I could be doing with the money being stolen from me at the point of a gun.

Quote
And I find it interesting that I am assaulted from several posters of arguing on an emotional basis, yet your opposition to the income tax is basically that it isn't "fair" for the billionaire to have to pay more taxes than the person on the street.  Who cares if it will raise more revenue and increase the national happiness; those poor billionaires are being unfairly persecuted!   

It won't raise revenue.  That is just a myth spoon-fed to the uneducated.  Taxing billionaires more doesn't do any good for the economy, or the government.

Quote
Besides, I've already explained to you (and you entirely ignored my post, instead going off on a completely unrelated mantra) that nothing about the graduated income tax unfairly hurts the rich.  Diminishing returns means that a flat tax would actually unfairly harm the poor.

Wrong.  If you want to go the flat tax route, then everyone, rich and poor, should pay 5%.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:24:05 AM

It isn't a red herring.  Taxation is theft.

Too bad: taxation is necessary for any society.  So please, apply an argument that doesn't also apply to stuff you agree with, alright?  It helps prevent hilarious double standards.

Quote

Wrong.  If you want to go the flat tax route, then everyone, rich and poor, should pay 5%.

It's incredibly annoying when your response to my reasoning is to simply restate your position, and ignore the fact that a flat tax isn't fair at all.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 11:28:55 AM
Too bad: taxation is necessary for any society.  So please, apply an argument that doesn't also apply to stuff you agree with, alright?  It helps prevent hilarious double standards.

Not to this extent.  We are way over-taxed.  You don't pay taxes, so it is easy for you to point at us earners and cry about how it isn't fair.

Quote
It's incredibly annoying when your response to my reasoning is to simply restate your position, and ignore the fact that a flat tax isn't fair at all.

A flat tax would be very fair.  Everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings.  Please, explain how that isn't fair.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
Not to this extent.  We are way over-taxed.  <whine whine whine>

No relevance to the issue of an income tax.  Especially not to the issue of taxing the rich.  Maybe you should try understanding the fact that we aren't debating the absolute level of taxation, but the relative levels of taxation.

Quote
A flat tax would be very fair.  Everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings.  Please, explain how that isn't fair.

I have, thrice.  Is reading too intellectual for you?

A rich person can afford a proportionally larger hit to their wealth than a poor person.  A person making 4 million a year can shrug off a 20% tax, while one making 20,000 a year is going to be devastated.  In fact, a billionaire losing 90% of his profits overnight will be pissed, but still wealthy enough to live the rest of his life in luxury (barring debts), while a middle class family would be royally screwed.

So if a working class citizen pays 5% in income taxes and a billionaire pays 50%, the billionaire would actually be less burdened than the former.


This isn't really that difficult to figure out, either.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 11:53:52 AM
No relevance to the issue of an income tax.  Especially not to the issue of taxing the rich.  Maybe you should try understanding the fact that we aren't debating the absolute level of taxation, but the relative levels of taxation.

I have, thrice.  Is reading too intellectual for you?

A rich person can afford a proportionally larger hit to their wealth than a poor person.  A person making 4 million a year can shrug off a 20% tax, while one making 20,000 a year is going to be devastated.  In fact, a billionaire losing 90% of his profits overnight will be pissed, but still wealthy enough to live the rest of his life in luxury (barring debts), while a middle class family would be royally screwed.

So if a working class citizen pays 5% in income taxes and a billionaire pays 50%, the billionaire would actually be less burdened than the former.


This isn't really that difficult to figure out, either.

Then would you consider an end of sale flat tax , and one where food is exempt?

In other words, get rid of the IRS as we know it, everyone pays a tax on what they purchase.
The poor would do well under this system, in that they could save money if all they do is spend money on food, since rent would not be a taxable item.
They would be growing a nest egg for their future, while the rich are out buying yachts and paying taxes.

Does that sound fair?

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 12:05:05 PM
Then would you consider an end of sale flat tax , and one where food is exempt?

In other words, get rid of the IRS as we know it, everyone pays a tax on what they purchase.
The poor would do well under this system, in that they could save money if all they do is spend money on food, since rent would not be a taxable item.
They would be growing a nest egg for their future, while the rich are out buying yachts and paying taxes.

Does that sound fair?

That doesn't sound like it would raise much revenue; and it may discourage spending.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:13:56 PM
That doesn't sound like it would raise much revenue; and it may discourage spending.

What is 20% of one million dollars?
You see, poor people don't buy yachts, rich people buy all kinds of things, poor people mainly purchase food, those with more disposable income buy Dish TV, cell phones, even cars, which they will pay taxes on.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 12:37:39 PM
What is 20% of one million dollars?

Rich people aren't the only ones to spend a significant portion of their dollars on luxury items, you know.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
Rich people aren't the only ones to spend a significant portion of their dollars on luxury items, you know.

Then they aren't poor and obviously can afford it.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:08:55 PM
Then they aren't poor and obviously can afford it.

Haha

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
Haha

Quite honestly, I don't see any other solution to our predicament than a flat tax.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 02:50:54 PM
Quite honestly, I don't see any other solution to our predicament than a flat tax.

It would be a huge step to fairness.  Our government is so much bigger than our private sector can afford.