WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! ![]() You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| So I was wondering... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 19 2011, 07:37 PM (125 Views) | |
| The Evil Smurfs | Aug 19 2011, 07:37 PM Post #1 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I listen to talk radio, so I've been hearing a lot of yammering about politics lately, and one phrase has started to really irritate me: "The rich should pay their fair share." Um, okay. Fair enough. But... what does that mean? No, I'm serious here. What's "rich"? What's "their fair share"? Doesn't anyone notice that this is so horribly vague as to be useless? Okay, the right usually responds with "don't raise taxes!" or even "cut taxes!" Well, those are kind of vague about parameters (how much to cut, can we ever raise taxes, etc), but the terms are pretty easily defined. I mean, sure, everyone agrees that Bill Gates qualifies as "rich", but he's more upper bound here and we want the lower bound. So, what's the lower limit for "rich"? I'm reasonably certain that most people would consider $1 million per year to be rich. Any lower? $500k? For awhile there, Obama's magic number was $250k. We don't hear that much any more, probably because it's not really rich. Sure, it's a lot more than I make, but it's really not that much in the grand scheme of things, and I doubt anyone making $250k considers themselves anywhere near being rich. So... what's rich? And that's not even getting into "their fair share" which is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. I mean, really. What's it mean? Does it mean we should make an income cap at whatever "rich" is and tax everything above that 100%? Or... or is it just meaningless class warfare that's intellectually dishonest and assumes that the base on the left is too daft to actually think about it? |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | Aug 20 2011, 04:59 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think a lot of it is just class warfare. I personally don't agree with taxing an individual that makes more than I do just for the fact that they "can afford to bear more of the burden." You have to remember that these are the people that are creating jobs so the lower class can have an income. We've already seen what happens when they loose money on the stock markets, imagine what would happen if you were to send another tax their way. Some other form of corporate tax might work, specifically strict penalties for those involved in foul play, but you have to remember too that they will pass this off on the little guy so that tax on the rich ends up being a tax on the poor anyway. Large corporations are like the government, they would rather raise prices (read:taxes) than fix the problem. The days of taxing income are coming to an end, it isn't fair and we aren't collecting enough money to pay for the exorbitant spending the government is doing. We either need to cut back on spending or find a better revenue stream. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Aug 20 2011, 08:32 AM Post #3 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society with roads, a postal system, and the other benefits inherent in a social contract society, especially one based on the classical liberal tradition of Locke and Hobbes as written in the constitution by the founders. Any tax system other than a graduated tax system is inherently regressive, punishing the less affluent who are less able to afford any kind of consumption. Tax on cigarettes, state lotteries, and other taxes are predominantly paid by lower-income, less-educated, working-class members of society. It's no surprise no one talks about the poor paying the lion's share of those taxes, because hell, they're poor- and the rich don't smoke or play the lottery. But as soon as a graduated income tax system is discussed, it becomes marxist class warfare. I find that intellectually dishonest as well. I believe in economic strength, but not at the expense of civil society or social harmony. The lower and lower middle classes consume the most demographically, and are the most immediately impacted by paying taxes, where the "rich" or those above Hack's hypothetical income line are less impacted. This is not a case of "from each according to his ability" claptrap, but I am continually amazed by the businessmen, industrialists, and so-called "job creators" who argue for a tax system which disproportionately disadvantages huge sections of their potential market. Of course, the off-shore tax havens, loopholes, and federal subsidies that allow many of these job-creators to get off without paying their share of taxes should make anyone on either side of the aisle mad, because the tax burden then falls on us. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | Aug 20 2011, 06:56 PM Post #4 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Agreed. I'm not saying that there should be no taxes. Nor am I saying that the government should provide no services. That being said, there is a huge gulf between what the left and the right think those services should be. And bringing up the Constitution is a two-edged sword as, if we're going to go that route, the government would be providing a lot less.
Yes, but the system keeps shifting. Something like 50% of the populace no longer pays income tax. Can't you see the problem with half the nation not paying in?
And sin taxes are beloved by the left as they punish people who do things they disagree with.
I'm not the one saying "the rich should pay their fair share". I'm trying to figure out what the hell it means. A statement with a completely undefined subject and predicate isn't a policy statement; it's mush.
And if the taxes weren't so onerous, there would be less incentive to seek those out. Of course, they could just be a bunch of titanic hypocrites like Warren Buffet. |
![]() |
|
| Retired WerePenguins | Aug 21 2011, 04:02 PM Post #5 |
|
Professional Sushi Eater
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am generally of a conservative leaning, but the notion by the progressives of "fair share" makes my blood boil. You see, I lived for eight years in Key West Florida, a place that would not be where it is today without one extreemly rich man who never paid a "fair share" but was more fairer than all of the progressive politicians in Washington DC combined. Henry Flaggler was extreemely rich. Being one of the befeficiaries of the greatest company that ever existed in the Untied States, that of Standard Oil, he lived in the days before income taxes. He had money that even the billionares of today only dream about (well perhaps not George Soros, although that is another story for another day). And what did he do with his money? Well he found Florida a nice place to live, so he built a railroad south. His dream was that everyman from the north could find a place warm to vacation where it wasn't cold in the often frozen winters. So he build a railroad and a hotel. But then one winter it froze for a few days so he went ever further south, and then even futher south, building hotels as he went. Finally he came up with his ultimate dream; a railroad across the Florida Keys to Key West, where it was only a 90 mile boat ride to Cuba. They called it Flaggler's Folly, but he made it possible. He devoted a massive amount of his fortune in order to get this accomplished. Ironically, at a very old age, he had an accident and died literally the day before the constitutionally approved income tax went into effect. Such a feat has never occured and will never occur as long as there exists people who think that rich people deserve to give some bizzare "fair share" while more than half of the population give nothing at all. While his overseas railroad did not last long, it was the foundation for the first US route (US1) that goes from Key West Florida to Maine. It became the lifeblood for the Florida Keys, and his dream of vacationing in warmer climates is enjoyed by millions and millions of people every year. So yes, when people complain about those "rich fat cats" I think of the richest fat cat of them all and what he actually did with all his money, something impossible had most of that money been given to the government. I thnk of how much more the Bill Gates Foundation could have accomplished if they had the money that got funneled to the government. I look at the marvel of the Overseas Railroad and wonder ... if the income tax hadn't been pushing so much money away from people with ideas and missions would the dream of a space colony at the earth moon L5 Lagrange point be a reality today? (That's my retirement home. I should be enjoying zero gravity sex with a great view of the earth.) Their "fair share" djust doesn't sound fair to me. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |

WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! 


![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






11:26 AM Jul 11