The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by whodey
also it might help if you stop talking about a book you know nothing about and for which you have no respect.

It would also help if people like you didn't get your feathers ruffled when someone brings up such an apparently taboo subject such as dissing the bible.

Not everyone thinks of the bible as some infallible god given book.

You should maybe think about THAT one for a change.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure there should be what, a volunteer government? How would they get money for such things as roads, schools, military, things that go over the heads of individual states like the US. There is a common interest in a country made of smaller states to not be attacked by another country.

I think you would agree with that.

So with that in mind, ...[text shortened]... ts, let someone else make them, leave us alone.

What does that volunteer government do then?

I never suggested we should have a volunteer government. I simply believe that fairness dictates that we are very careful about making some pay more than others. Here people are advocating those who already pay the most in dollar terms to pay a higher percentage of their income as well. Let's at least shrink government if we are aren't going to fund equally.

Originally posted by quackquack
I never suggested we should have a volunteer government. I simply believe that fairness dictates that we are very careful about making some pay more than others. Here people are advocating those who already pay the most in dollar terms to pay a higher percentage of their income as well. Let's at least shrink government if we are aren't going to fund equally.

So you figure it's fair for a billionaire who now pays say 1% is fine but a dude making 100K pays 28%?

You do realize that is what is happening don't you? I saw one report about Bill Gates, for instance, a few years back he made 5 BILLION income. But payed 100 million in taxes. That is 2%.

I made the huge sum of 84,000 last year. My tax, about 15%.

Is that fair? Pound for pound I paid 7 times as much as Gates.

If he paid % wise as much as me, he would have to have paid 650 million.

That never happened and never will happen because he has a whole town full of lawyers.

Is THAT equitable?

Originally posted by normbenign
It is trivial, but real. Sure if wealth is measured by money alone, without it no wealth could exist, however it is my belief that some isolated individuals may possess wealth which is not attainable in a society.

If anything, your argument says that the wealthy contribute more to society anyway by whatever activity which made them wealthy, for exampl ...[text shortened]... ell without society, in fact they miss out on stuff like crime, taxes, noise, and I could go on.

There is no place where humans live "without society". And there never has been. As a Founder said:

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part 2, Chapter 1

Originally posted by no1marauder
There is no place where humans live "without society". And there never has been.

That is about as ignorant an assertion as I've seen. Of course the majority of humans over time are connected with some society, there are even today those who completely avoid social contact, and live solitary lives.

Originally posted by normbenign
That is about as ignorant an assertion as I've seen. Of course the majority of humans over time are connected with some society, there are even today those who completely avoid social contact, and live solitary lives.

LMAO! Stomp your feet and hold your breath if you want, but there is no one who lives completely outside society.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! Stomp your feet and hold your breath if you want, but there is no one who lives completely outside society.

I'm breathing normally, and not stomping my feet. You are making categorical, unsupported statements, and LYAO and probably stomping your feet. I have conceded that your statement is mostly true, but not entirely. There are people even today who prefer and pursue an isolated and subsistence lifestyle.

Originally posted by normbenign
I'm breathing normally, and not stomping my feet. You are making categorical, unsupported statements, and LYAO and probably stomping your feet. I have conceded that your statement is mostly true, but not entirely. There are people even today who prefer and pursue an isolated and subsistence lifestyle.

YOU are the one making an unsupported assertion but I'd certainly be willing to evaluate any evidence you have of people who live completely outside society with no contact with it whatsoever.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is trivial, but real. Sure if wealth is measured by money alone, without it no wealth could exist, however it is my belief that some isolated individuals may possess wealth which is not attainable in a society.

If anything, your argument says that the wealthy contribute more to society anyway by whatever activity which made them wealthy, for exampl ...[text shortened]... ell without society, in fact they miss out on stuff like crime, taxes, noise, and I could go on.

How would this profession of yours managed without government enforcement of contracts? Or a money supply? Etc. etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly, because the state is your task master and God is your salvation.

So give everything to the poor like Jesus said and stop complaining about how terrible it is that rich folks have to pay taxes at a very slightly higher rate than most people.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure it's fair for a billionaire who now pays say 1% is fine but a dude making 100K pays 28%?

You do realize that is what is happening don't you? I saw one report about Bill Gates, for instance, a few years back he made 5 BILLION income. But payed 100 million in taxes. That is 2%.

I made the huge sum of 84,000 last year. My tax, about 15%. ...[text shortened]... appened and never will happen because he has a whole town full of lawyers.

Is THAT equitable?

You do realize that the unfair taxing is due to our big tax code that the Democrats want to expand.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do realize that the unfair taxing is due to our big tax code that the Democrats want to expand.

nobody said democrats don't pander to rich people. if they did, they are deluding themselves.


nobody said that what true republicans are saying, less wasteful spending, smaller more efficient government, etc is bad.

the problem is that many republicans now pretty much stand for insane libertarianism. that they think spending money on healthcare is wasteful but dumping money into the military is not. that it is ok to let corporations reincorporate themselves in ireland and pay 2% tax. that somehow allowing corporations to make billions out of tax cuts and loopholes will result in trickling down (something that hasn't happened yet).

the other problem is that democrats are exactly the same.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure it's fair for a billionaire who now pays say 1% is fine but a dude making 100K pays 28%?

You do realize that is what is happening don't you? I saw one report about Bill Gates, for instance, a few years back he made 5 BILLION income. But payed 100 million in taxes. That is 2%.

I made the huge sum of 84,000 last year. My tax, about 15%. ...[text shortened]... appened and never will happen because he has a whole town full of lawyers.

Is THAT equitable?

When a guy pays $100 million dollars in taxes, society should say thank you not dream up fake moralistic arguments that he should pay more. To do otherwise is the ultimate in ungratefulness.

Originally posted by quackquack
When a guy pays $100 million dollars in taxes, society should say thank you not dream up fake moralistic arguments that he should pay more. To do otherwise is the ultimate in ungratefulness.

but a hospital won't get built just with those 100 millions. the hospital costs 101 million. so do you ask 1000 poor people to go hungry or not buy shoes for their children? or do you ask the rich guy to pay one more million?

the guy paying 100 millions won't starve. he won't go bankrupt if he pays 100 million, nor will he go bankrupt if he pays 105. however if he doesn't pay that extra 5 million, it means those must be gathered from other people. from people who WOULD starve if they are asked to pay 1-2% more.

a flat tax plan raises taxes for the poor and lowers them for rich people. it means it squeezes pocket change from a lot of people who will dearly miss that pocket change and forgives rich people from paying large sums of money they won't even notice.

do you think the koch brothers would miss let's say 20 millions of dollars each year?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but a hospital won't get built just with those 100 millions. the hospital costs 101 million. so do you ask 1000 poor people to go hungry or not buy shoes for their children? or do you ask the rich guy to pay one more million?

the guy paying 100 millions won't starve. he won't go bankrupt if he pays 100 million, nor will he go bankrupt if he pays 105. how ...[text shortened]... tice.

do you think the koch brothers would miss let's say 20 millions of dollars each year?

We've reached the point where certain people pay enough. Either build the hospital for $100 million dollars, make cuts on this project or a different project or broaden the tax base. But it unacceptable to have new pet projects and tax the group you decide won't miss their money.