Increased taxes on high income

Originally posted by KellyJay
So when I worked two jobs while going to school to put myself into a place that I can earn wealth means I do not get to keep what I now earn, instead through the force of taxes have to have my income taken from me so that someone who didn't do anything to help themselves gets a free ride?

If you earn a dollar then put in a dime, if you make a 10K you put in 1K
that would be FAIR.
Kelly

The strength of character and determination which allowed you to hold down two jobs while studying were innate characteristics that you were fortunate enough to be born with. Why begrudge a bit of the profit to those who aren't so fortunate?

The dime is much more important to the guy who only has one dollar than is the thousand dollars to the guy who has ten thousand. That's why progressive taxation is fair.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
That proposal defeats a key purpose of taxation; which is to rectify the injustices of the free market by redistributing some of the surplus wealth from its beneficiaries to the poor and needy.

taxation is to rectify the injustices of the free market by redistributing some of the surplus wealth from its beneficiaries to the poor and needy.-Teinosuke

Really ?! I was under the impression that taxes were to pay for roads, bridges, the military, police, fire dept. ,schools etc. Not to rectify "social injustice". Redistribution of wealth.
How long have you belived this way ? Its really a very strange perception you have IMO.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
The strength of character and determination which allowed you to hold down two jobs while studying were innate characteristics that you were fortunate enough to be born with. Why begrudge a bit of the profit to those who aren't so fortunate?

The dime is much more important to the guy who only has one dollar than is the thousand dollars to the guy who has ten thousand. That's why progressive taxation is fair.

The strength of character and determination which allowed you to hold down two jobs while studying were innate characteristics that you were fortunate enough to be born with. Why begrudge a bit of the profit to those who aren't so fortunate?-Teinosuke

I beg to differ Teinosuke. A person is not "born with" strength of character and determination. These are learned traits more than likely from good parenting and or through life experences.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
The strength of character and determination which allowed you to hold down two jobs while studying were innate characteristics that you were fortunate enough to be born with. Why begrudge a bit of the profit to those who aren't so fortunate?

The dime is much more important to the guy who only has one dollar than is the thousand dollars to the guy who has ten thousand. That's why progressive taxation is fair.

Are you serious?
If you are not willing to lift a finger to help yourself why should anyone be
forced to make sure you get a free ride on the backs of others? It seems
rather silly to say no one can have credit for effort, if you work your butt
off it is because you were made that way, and if you are a lazy puke you
were born that way, and everyone else should be forced to give you money.

You may as well throw out all laws if the only thing that matters are matters
of the innate characteristics, if you do or do not do anything it was just how
you were made, no personal responsibilities allowed.

The same percentage is the same for everyone which is why it is fair. I'm
sure the person who earns 10K can their 1K more useful than the dime, but
we are talking about taking away freebees and making sure everyone is
treated the same way. The only way you are ever going to do that is just
do it, treat everyone the same way. You pull out in taxes the same
percentage out of everyone's pay, than no matter how successful, or no
matter how unsuccessful you are you are equal.
Kelly

Originally posted by utherpendragon

taxation is to rectify the injustices of the free market by redistributing some of the surplus wealth from its beneficiaries to the poor and needy.-Teinosuke

Really ?! I was under the impression that taxes were to pay for roads, bridges, the military, police, fire dept. ,schools etc. Not to rectify "social injustice". Redistribution of ...[text shortened]... wealth.
How long have you belived this way ? Its really a very strange perception you have IMO.

If everyone could afford to pay themselves for a private education, there would be no need for taxes to support schools. If everyone could afford private health care, there would be no need for a national health service.

Taxation is inherently redistributive, in that it provides for all what would otherwise be available only for some.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I beg to differ Teinosuke. A person is not "born with" strength of character and determination. These are learned traits more than likely from good parenting and or through life experences.

If they're learned traits based on good parenting that still means that they aren't things for which you have a right to take the credit; other people would have acted just as well, had they been fortunate enough to benefit from the same good parenting. Your life experiences determine how you act, for good or ill; if you'd had different life experiences you'd have acted better or worse.

Religious people often say things like "There but for the Grace of God go I". My position is "There but for my genes / my upbringing / my fortune go I".

Originally posted by KellyJay

It seems rather silly to say no one can have credit for effort, if you work your butt off it is because you were made that way, and if you are a lazy puke you were born that way, and everyone else should be forced to give you money.

Well, I was exaggerating for effect. In reality, I think that people are partially responsible for their actions (ie, I believe in a degree of free will), but that responsibility is constantly qualified by factors over which there is no control. If I believed in pure free will, I'd be a libertarian. If I believed in pure determinism, I'd be a Communist. But as I believe in a blend of free will and constraints, I advocate social democracy with moderate redistribution.

You may as well throw out all laws if the only thing that matters are matters of the innate characteristics, if you do or do not do anything it was just how you were made, no personal responsibilities allowed.

If someone is a danger to society, because of innate characteristics or otherwise, they may need to be imprisoned or otherwise punished to ensure that other citizens are protected from them. The matter of whether one blames them morally is irrelevant to this aim. In any case, laws (and the corresponding fear of punishment) are one of the environmental factors that shape human behaviour. If a particular behaviour is undesirable, then criminalising it may help to stop it happening too often. Again, the matter of whether one holds the criminal morally responsible for his actions is irrelevant.

The same percentage is the same for everyone which is why it is fair. I'm
sure the person who earns 10K can their 1K more useful than the dime, but
we are talking about taking away freebees and making sure everyone is
treated the same way.

The person who earns 10K probably won't miss the 1K in the way that the person who only had a dollar would miss his dime! Your conclusion only holds, anyway, if you assume the person deserves to have what he has.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
[b]It seems rather silly to say no one can have credit for effort, if you work your butt off it is because you were made that way, and if you are a lazy puke you were born that way, and everyone else should be forced to give you money.

Well, I was exaggerating for effect. In reality, I think that people are partially responsible for their actions (i ...[text shortened]... dime! Your conclusion only holds, anyway, if you assume the person deserves to have what he has.[/b]

"The person who earns 10K probably won't miss the 1K in the way that the person who only had a dollar would miss his dime! Your conclusion only holds, anyway, if you assume the person deserves to have what he has."

You know that how? I'm very sure I'd miss 1K over a dime, even when I
was very poor and struggling. You seem to assume to know what is best
and how everyone should be treated, someone make you the supreme
plumb line of right and wrong? Yes, I do assume that if you earned your
money its yours. You think you are lord and master that gets to say who
gets to keep what they worked for and who doesn't?
Kelly

Originally posted by Teinosuke
If they're learned traits based on good parenting that still means that they aren't things for which you have a right to take the credit; other people would have acted just as well, had they been fortunate enough to benefit from the same good parenting. Your life experiences determine how you act, for good or ill; if you'd had different life experiences yo ...[text shortened]... e Grace of God go I". My position is "There but for my genes / my upbringing / my fortune go I".

So you feel you have a right to take away from someone else, because as
you see it, you deserve to take away from them, because they were blessed
with stuff you were not. That has to be one of the most selfish things I have
ever heard anyone say who wanted take from others of what they didn't
earn themselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you feel you have a right to take away from someone else, because as
you see it, you deserve to take away from them, because they were blessed
with stuff you were not. That has to be one of the most selfish things I have
ever heard anyone say who wanted take from others of what they didn't
earn themselves.
Kelly

No, I feel that I have a duty to give to someone else, because I was blessed with stuff that they were not. That seems like an unselfish thing to me, but there we are.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm very sure I'd miss 1K over a dime, even when I was very poor and struggling. You seem to assume to know what is best and how everyone should be treated, someone make you the supreme plumb line of right and wrong? Yes, I do assume that if you earned your money its yours. You think you are lord and master that gets to say who gets to keep what they worked for and who doesn't?

You'd miss a thousand dollars, but do you think Bill Gates would miss a thousand dollars?

I don't think I know what is best more than any other voter. Fortunately we are all "lord and master" because we all get to cast our votes to determine tax rates among many other things.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know that how? I'm very sure I'd miss 1K over a dime, even when I
was very poor and struggling.

You misunderstood what he said. He said that if you were poor and struggling you would miss a dime more than you currently miss 1K.
For a poor person, 10% of their income may represent the difference between eating or going hungry, or shelter vs living on the street. For you, it represents more luxuries vs less luxuries.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Depends on how that success was achieved, doesn't it?

Exactly my point, and exactly what you didn't stipulate in your post.

Originally posted by kmax87
When you borrow money interest is due. Think of taxation and inflation as interest on the money you've earned and you will soon see that you work for the right to borrow your wages.

So if my employer were to pay me a week in advance I'd no longer have to pay tax?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
No, I feel that I have a duty to give to someone else, because I was blessed with stuff that they were not. That seems like an unselfish thing to me, but there we are.

I also feel compelled to help those that need it, but we are talking about
taxes not your giving. We are forced by law to pay taxes, that is NOT at
all giving to the poor, that is simply obeying the law. Your giving is that
which you do when you have the ability to do anything with it, and instead
of spending it on yourself, you choose to give to another.
Kelly