31 Dec 12
Originally posted by bill718I would suggest you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
That's not quite true Whodey. The 75% tax rate will be reduced for the rich in France alright, but your suggestion that "under Socialism government believes it knows how to spend the money the best, and most" is just plain untrue.
Consider the definition of Socialism:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of ...[text shortened]...
NOT in how tax money is spent. I would suggest you are mixing lies with the truth here....
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by JS357Do you know how hard it is to make a million dollars a year? You're not "given the opportunity", unless you define being "given the opportunity" as putting in a liftetime of sacrifice, spending countless nights away from your family, working incredibly long hours, risking everything, failing, enduring the humiliation of failure, picking yourself up, spending long, long years in school becoming one of the best in the world at what you do, accepting that some of your failures are going to be public and highly scrutinized, that your reputation is on the line every day - and I could go on and on. You think that anybody can do any job, that everyone is interchangeable, and because you were raised in the generation where you got a trophy just for participation, that that's how life is going to and should work.
I submit that you have not fully thought out* what you would do if, having a job in which you can earn X dollars (euros, if you wish) you were given the opportunity to earn another 250,000 of them that year, on the condition that an additional 750,000 would go from your income source, directly into your country's tax coffers; but it would be called "income tax ...[text shortened]... ve to do?"
*Let's put it this way: most people are not as principled as you seem to be.
I'm astounded at this concept that money just falls out of the sky onto a lucky and unworthy group of people. I'm proud of what I've accomplished. I've taken tremendous risks. I've pushed my boundaries. I spend very little time in my comfort zone. I've pushed myself right up to my breaking point - not my professional breaking point, my personal one - five or six times in my adult life, not on single days but in multiyear campaigns. I lived in a rathole and went food shopping at a Dollar Store for most of my late twenties - because I made the choice to be poor in the present time, delay gratification, and pursue a degree that would afford me a chance to advance in my career and live in some degree of comfort.
Now, when all of those decisions are paying off, I should want to shovel piles of twenties that I earned into a government-operated furnace? Can you explain to me why I would want to do that?
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672If only I was as talented and hard-working as Jeffrey Skilling.
Do you know how hard it is to make a million dollars a year? You're not "given the opportunity", unless you define being "given the opportunity" as putting in a liftetime of sacrifice, spending countless nights away from your family, working incredibly long hours, risking everything, failing, enduring the humiliation of failure, picking yourself up, sp ...[text shortened]... o a government-operated furnace? Can you explain to me why I would want to do that?
Originally posted by sasquatch672The wealthy are indeed God Men. We should be building statutes to their greatness rather than insisting that they pay a fair share to maintain the society that has enabled them to be so Great.
Do you know how hard it is to make a million dollars a year? You're not "given the opportunity", unless you define being "given the opportunity" as putting in a liftetime of sacrifice, spending countless nights away from your family, working incredibly long hours, risking everything, failing, enduring the humiliation of failure, picking yourself up, sp o a government-operated furnace? Can you explain to me why I would want to do that?
31 Dec 12
Now, when all of those decisions are paying off, I should want to shovel piles of twenties that I earned into a government-operated furnace? Can you explain to me why I would want to do that?[/b]because, now that you HAVE achieved, and good luck to you, it is only fair and fitting that you give back.That does not mean that you can not keep what you have earned, but you also owe a debt to those that have helped you along the way.The system should allow you to enjoy the fruits of your labor/risk/toil, or whatever, so do so, but you still owe a debt to the "system". How do you define your "fair share". I wish all the best to those that succeed.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderJohn Galt (and plantation politics) curently guide much of the USA - that is why the USA is in decline :>(
The wealthy are indeed God Men. We should be building statutes to their greatness rather than insisting that they pay a fair share to maintain the society that has enabled them to be so Great.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by kbear1kSome of the right wingers here think we're already in Atlas Shrugged World, which is why we see preposterous predictions like 3000 point drops in the stock market in a month, a vast increase in unemployment because the rich will now stop employing people because they're taxes are too high and the supposed imminent flight of our "producers" to some non-existent Galtian paradise. This is a common theme on this board.
John Galt (and plantation politics) curently guide much of the USA - that is why the USA is in decline :>(
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by jimmacThe government doesn't help any one of us more than another. We all get the same* public education, the same police protection, the same roads, the same parks, the same justice system, the same opportunities to run for office or bid on contracts or get hired for government jobs, etc.
because, now that you HAVE achieved, and good luck to you, it is only fair and fitting that you give back.That does not mean that you can not keep what you have earned, but you also owe a debt to those that have helped you along the way.The system should allow you to enjoy the fruits of your labor/risk/toil, or whatever, so do so, but you still owe a debt to ...[text shortened]... he "system". How do you define your "fair share". I wish all the best to those that succeed.
Giving back equally in proportion to what we have received from the government would mean taxing everyone a flat percentage based on their extant property or income (doesn't matter which; taxing income is easier).
* That's the goal anyway. All men are created equal, etc. People file suit if this is NOT the case.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Why would it mean a flat percentage and not a flat amount?
The government doesn't help any one of us more than another. We all get the same* public education, the same police protection, the same roads, the same parks, the same justice system, the same opportunities to run for office or bid on contracts or get hired for government jobs, etc.
Giving back equally in proportion to what we have received from the ...[text shortened]... 's the goal anyway. All men are created equal, etc. People file suit if this is NOT the case.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderTo be more specific, they are lawyer god-men. For you see, they are experts on everything from economics, science, theology, and ethics. For it is they, and they alone, who possess such powers so as to force the rest of society to comply.
The wealthy are indeed God Men. We should be building statutes to their greatness rather than insisting that they pay a fair share to maintain the society that has enabled them to be so Great.
31 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358That would be economically inefficient and deleterious to the system as a whole.
The government doesn't help any one of us more than another. We all get the same* public education, the same police protection, the same roads, the same parks, the same justice system, the same opportunities to run for office or bid on contracts or get hired for government jobs, etc.
Giving back equally in proportion to what we have received from the 's the goal anyway. All men are created equal, etc. People file suit if this is NOT the case.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672In Johnny's comment and my reply, we are talking about the extra income after the first X dollars and I picked a million out of the air.
Do you know how hard it is to make a million dollars a year? You're not "given the opportunity", unless you define being "given the opportunity" as putting in a liftetime of sacrifice, spending countless nights away from your family, working incredibly long hours, risking everything, failing, enduring the humiliation of failure, picking yourself up, sp ...[text shortened]... o a government-operated furnace? Can you explain to me why I would want to do that?
I believe that the high earning jobs in a country that has progressive taxation, are paid sums that take into account the fact that the last amounts paid (say, a bonus) will be taxed at the higher rate. IOW, executive compensation plans, etc., pay more at the top end to the earner, just because a larger chunk of it will be taxed. This way, the executive tends to end up with as much as he/she would have ended up with if the tax were less, and can still buy that Mercedes every two years. Of course the earner is still doing everything they can to minimize the tax bite.
I believe this because these people aren't stupid about money. It's rational optimization of an economic system.
But someone with a formal economics education is welcome to correct me on this.
31 Dec 12
Originally posted by spruce1123581st / The government doesn't help any one of us more than another.
The government doesn't help any one of us more than another. We all get the same* public education, the same police protection, the same roads, the same parks, the same justice system, the same opportunities to run for office or bid on contracts or get hired for government jobs, etc.
Giving back equally in proportion to what we have received from the ...[text shortened]... 's the goal anyway. All men are created equal, etc. People file suit if this is NOT the case.
I believe that they generally do an should help some more than others. If you do not have welfare then you encourage crime.At the other end of the scale (possibly corrupt?) they help wealthy businessmen.
2nd/ We all get the same* public education, the same police protection, the same roads, the same parks, the same justice system, the same opportunities to run for office or bid on contracts or get hired for government jobs, etc.
I'm not to sure about this,though creating an all equal playing field would be impossible.
3rd/ Giving back equally in proportion to what we have received from the government would mean taxing everyone a flat percentage based on their extant property or income (doesn't matter which; taxing income is easier).
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Why would you tax a low income worker that was simply going to ask for it back in welfare. A flat based tax system would be inherently unfair. It MUST progressively increase to work. That helps to re-balance the inequality of the income TAKEN ( or indeed earn't ) from others.
Executives in the main "TAKE". They give themselves pay rises no matter what happens. They cut the workforce-= bonus. They expand the workforce-= Bonus. Profits go up-+ Bonus.Profits go down in tough conditions-= bonus. etc etc etc.