Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Nati Ice' post='720103' date='Nov 1 2008, 03:58 PM']ok so when teddy roosevelt championed a progressive income tax it wasnt wealth redistribution, and when george bush gave disproportiantely high tax cuts to the rich it wasnt wealth redistribution, but when a guy named barack obama proposed giving tax breaks to middle and lower income families all of a sudden the terminology changed. oh, i get it! tax cuts are cool so long as they disproportionately affect the top 5%, but the second they begin to help the bottom 95% they all of a sudden become some combination of "wealth redistribution," "socialism," "marxism," and "communism" seriously, whats with obssessive nature of people in this country who want nothing more than to protect the rich. the incentive to turn a profit cannot be removed in our type of govt.[/quote] I don't give a shit who calls it whatever... Santa Claus can come up with Obama's plan... it is still wealth redistribution... man with more money is paying more than you... if everyone paid 10% (example rate) of their income in taxes - you make 100,000 and I make 50,000... you'll pay in 10,000 while I'll pay in 5,000... what is wrong with that option? Everyone pays the same RATE... the wealthier still pay more into the kitty... oh no, that isn't "fair" because you make more not only should you pay more based on the same rate I pay, but you're going to pay an additional 2% (example rate) on money over X. So, because you're successful you pay more (rate-wise and monetarily) than someone less successful. Is that fair? What is the obsession with people in this country to feel like it is alright to tax wealthier people AT A HIGHER RATE than others? Why can't everyone play the same RATE across the board?? Wealthier will still pay more tax into the pool than less wealthy. The poorer you are, the less tax you pay... isn't that simple??? Having wealthier people pay more, so that poorer people not only don't pay their fair share, but pay less is "wealth redistribution"... paint it however you'd like but it is making one party pay more so another party can pay less. When George Bush gave "high tax cuts to the wealthy" what was he doing??? Bringing them closer in RATE to what everyone else is paying... across the board. It is a relatively simple concept. You and 3 of your siblings (ages 40, 37, 34, 31) go to buy your mommy and daddy something for Christmas... it costs $200 - does each person pay $50??? Or do you see which of you makes the most and that person pay 35%, then next wealthiest pays 30%, then next wealthiest pays 20%, and the least wealth pays 15%??? No, everyone pays the same "percentage"... This isn't that complicated. It only gets this way when you bring politicians and politics into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 So you would be all for taxing capital gains at the same rates that income is taxed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='720952' date='Nov 3 2008, 11:58 AM']So you would be all for taxing capital gains at the same rates that income is taxed?[/quote] No, I wouldn't... I didn't address capital gains in my examples with... but the same principle should apply... whatever rate you choose (whatever is agreed upon)... everyone pays the same on their capital gains... the more investment that you have - the more actual dollars you pay... But, I guess we're arguing philosophical differences here that essentially helped spawn the two major parties we have now - granted their bastard versions of the originals but, I digress. Some feel that the rich should not only pay more dollars-wise, but should also pay at a higher rate than others. Others feel that everyone, across the board, should pay the same percentage rate on their earnings. Its an argument that I don't ever see ending. Kind of like some people liking Budweiser, others Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 All taxes are wealth redistibution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 I was just wondering. I think there is going to have to be a lot of creative thinking with respect to the whole range of policies which make up our economic system over the next few years. Given certain circumstances, I would not be averse to a more narrow range of tax brackets, but it would have to include certain other social benefits for the entire community: i.e. health care, education and retirement prominently. I would suggest this for rumination: Why is it okay to be egalitarian with respect to paying the bills, but not with accruing wealth? Especially given that many "wealth" generating activities occuring within our society now are not productive components within a healthy economy? The next few years will be very interesting, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 If the World Could Vote: [url="http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results"]http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='721053' date='Nov 3 2008, 02:07 PM']If the World Could Vote: [url="http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results"]http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results[/url][/quote] [img]http://randt.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/john_mccain_narrowweb__300x3730.jpg[/img] [b]I got Macedonia bitches!!![/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='720985' date='Nov 3 2008, 01:09 PM']All taxes are wealth redistibution.[/quote] Not true. If I make 50,000 and you make 100,000 but we both go to buy something at the store we pay the same percentage in sales tax, don't we??? Only when you ask a certain bracket of people to pay more (higher percentage) so that another class / bracket doesn't have to pay as high then you have wealth redistribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='721057' date='Nov 3 2008, 02:20 PM']Not true. If I make 50,000 and you make 100,000 but we both go to buy something at the store we pay the same amount in sales tax, don't we??? Only when you ask a certain bracket of people to pay more (higher percentage) so that another class / bracket doesn't have to pay as high then you have wealth redistribution.[/quote] and we both take our various forms of wealth (you moreso than me) and the goverment takes it and redistrubtes it as it sees fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721058' date='Nov 3 2008, 03:24 PM']and we both take our various forms of wealth (you moreso than me) and the goverment takes it and redistrubtes it as it sees fit.[/quote] what is done with that money at that point varies depending on the state, etc. but yes, various different taxes would go and be redistributed for various different things (welfare programs, roads, etc., etc., etc.) but, the gist of it is we're both paying at the same rate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='721063' date='Nov 3 2008, 02:36 PM']what is done with that money at that point varies depending on the state, etc. but yes, various different taxes would go and be redistributed for various different things (welfare programs, roads, etc., etc., etc.) but, the gist of it is we're both paying at the same rate...[/quote] but if the needs of the state require money and the difference between you paying more and me paying more is you have to downgrade from a mercadies to a lexus and i have to cut my healthcare out...then what should be the responsible thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721065' date='Nov 3 2008, 03:42 PM']but if the needs of the state require money and the difference between you paying more and me paying more is you have to downgrade from a mercadies to a lexus and i have to cut my healthcare out...then what should be the responsible thing to do?[/quote] then whatever tax rate is being affected gets increased by x% across the board. Are both of us not using the services that the "needs of the state" are requiring??? same example. If you're making minimal then your actual dollars increase (in a percentage scenario) isn't going to affect you to the point where you're having to drop healthcare... especially factoring in that mr. money bags, with the percentage increase that is being proposed across the board, will pay more (in actual dollars) by a significant amount. If I'm making 50,000 and you're making 250,000 and income tax is increase by 1/2% then I'll pay an additional $250 / year $50,000 x .005 You'll pay an additional $1250 / year $250,000 x .005 So wealthier person is already going to pay $1000 more per year just based on a straight, across the board percentage increase... now, if you want to argue the hundreds of tax law loopholes that need to be addressed and closed - I'm right there with you. That is the same argument, just from the other end. If joe blow is making $50,000 then mr. moneybags should have to actually pay the same percentage and not be able to instill all the various loopholes such that he's paying the same actual percentage as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Warren Buffet pays less percentage than his secratary. [url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/"]http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721095' date='Nov 3 2008, 04:35 PM']Warren Buffet pays less percentage than his secratary. [url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/"]http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/[/url][/quote] I think that is what I just said... [i]<looking>[/i] yep! That is what I mean - close the loopholes. And, have everyone pay the same percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='721096' date='Nov 3 2008, 03:46 PM']I think that is what I just said... [i]<looking>[/i] yep! That is what I mean - close the loopholes. And, have everyone pay the same percentage.[/quote] He isnt using offshore tax shelters. Otherwise we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721097' date='Nov 3 2008, 04:50 PM']He isnt using offshore tax shelters. Otherwise we agree.[/quote] Honestly, if all the various loopholes that are currently being exploited were closed we'd probably be able to reduce the overall tax rates that are in place now for everyone. Because those that make the most would pay significantly more and more than offset the reduction for all. Just an assumption, but I'd venture a guess it is a pretty accurate one. On a related note, who here is in favor of a flat tax, or various sales tax only ventures that those like Boortz, etc. champion? Where you'd pay a larger percentage on sales tax, but you'd keep all of your check... Would get rid of the IRS completely and save a shit pot load of money there alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Im feeling a sence of deja vu, have we argued this issue before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 I can't wait for it to be over just so it can be over and done with, I don't even really care who wins anymore, just please stop making my eyes bleed everytime I try to watch the news. There's other things happening across the globe that are far more interesting to me than the damn election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumble In the Jungle Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 well, looks like sarah palins ride should be over in a couple of days along with mccains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='721098' date='Nov 3 2008, 03:59 PM']Honestly, if all the various loopholes that are currently being exploited were closed we'd probably be able to reduce the overall tax rates that are in place now for everyone. Because those that make the most would pay significantly more and more than offset the reduction for all.[/quote] This is why I refuse to give a cent to the white collar criminals of Ikea. Don't shop there, people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721101' date='Nov 3 2008, 05:14 PM']Im feeling a sence of deja vu, have we argued this issue before?[/quote] What issue would you be referring to? The flat tax? If so, I don't know, but I wasn't arguing anything - just getting others opinions of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='721149' date='Nov 3 2008, 08:06 PM']What issue would you be referring to? The flat tax? If so, I don't know, but I wasn't arguing anything - just getting others opinions of it.[/quote] the progressive tax and tax loopoles in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccartman2 Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721095' date='Nov 3 2008, 03:35 PM']Warren Buffet pays less percentage than his secratary. [url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/"]http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/[/url][/quote] Wow, economic advisor to Obama. Is there anything fishy about a man this wealth, among the other rich folks supporting Obama? Some how, I think he will continue to pay less taxes than his secratary under Obama, while he turns the screws on the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 [quote name='ccartman2' post='721204' date='Nov 4 2008, 07:06 AM']Wow, economic advisor to Obama. Is there anything fishy about a man this wealth, among the other rich folks supporting Obama? Some how, I think he will continue to pay less taxes than his secratary under Obama, while he turns the screws on the rest of us. [/quote] You might want to play catchup, that interview was give way before he was advising Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccartman2 Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='721212' date='Nov 4 2008, 08:19 AM']You might want to play catchup, that interview was give way before he was advising Obama. [/quote] Don't see what difference that makes at all. Facts are facts. At any rate, I don't think the super rich are too concerned with Taxes. especially when they are good at hiding money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.