A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

Fungus Gnat

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
There has to be winners and losers and all those in between in a free society. A robust economy cannot be sustained if we reward the losers by penalizing the winners, this is where incentive and motivation become stagnant.
Click to expand...
That's absurd, how many rich people are going to trade their life for welfare? It's an insane argument.

Protecting purchasing power at the expense of society is like denying people a college education to increase the value of you're own. It's selfish and bad for society.
 
Fungus Gnat

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
... and people that feel taking money from anybody's wages, are immoral thieves.
Click to expand...
Guess I have to look at robin hood in an entirely new light now.

The rich benefit more from a society where the wealth is more equally distributed but their power and influence is lessened. It's about control nothing more.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Fungus Gnat said:
Guess I have to look at robin hood in an entirely new light now.

The rich benefit more from a society where the wealth is more equally distributed but their power and influence is lessened. It's about control nothing more.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Robin Hood is a fictional character that ROBBED the rich and gave to the poor. He didn't take from those who work for a living.
I agree, it is about control, what does wealth bring... more control. Who controls the wealth? To certain extent, the wealthy but in the big picture of things, government controls the wealth. They establish the laws and regulations that allow for the rich and powerful to gain more wealth and power. Raising taxes on the rich is only going to chase them out of the taxpayer pool.
Taxation inhibits growth of whatever is taxed. Between wage taxes and minimum wage laws, it's amazing that there is any middle class at all.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
Irrelevant. Robin Hood is a fictional character that ROBBED the rich and gave to the poor. He didn't take from those who work for a living.
I agree, it is about control, what does wealth bring... more control. Who controls the wealth? To certain extent, the wealthy but in the big picture of things, government controls the wealth. They establish the laws and regulations that allow for the rich and powerful to gain more wealth and power. Raising taxes on the rich is only going to chase them out of the taxpayer pool.
Taxation inhibits growth of whatever is taxed. Between wage taxes and minimum wage laws, it's amazing that there is any middle class at all.
Click to expand...
You must have missed the memo, since 08 the middle class is now all but dead.
 
Fungus Gnat

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
Irrelevant. Robin Hood is a fictional character that ROBBED the rich and gave to the poor. He didn't take from those who work for a living.
I agree, it is about control, what does wealth bring... more control. Who controls the wealth? To certain extent, the wealthy but in the big picture of things, government controls the wealth. They establish the laws and regulations that allow for the rich and powerful to gain more wealth and power. Raising taxes on the rich is only going to chase them out of the taxpayer pool.
Taxation inhibits growth of whatever is taxed. Between wage taxes and minimum wage laws, it's amazing that there is any middle class at all.
Click to expand...
Government is a tool, without it you return to oligarchy that control you directly without any recourse. Just because something can be abused doesn't negate its value. Progressive taxation was around before the middle class even existed. To blame it for its fall is a bit disingenuous.
http://prospect.org/article/who-will-save-middle-class
 
B

beenthere

New Member
Fungus Gnat said:
That's absurd, how many rich people are going to trade their life for welfare? It's an insane argument.

Protecting purchasing power at the expense of society is like denying people a college education to increase the value of you're own. It's selfish and bad for society.
Click to expand...
Maybe absurd in your opinion but I realize utopia only exists in fairy tales and socialist's minds.
Who says the "rich people" would have to trade their life for welfare, you, opinions my friend, are a dime a dozen!

What's absurd to me, and most Americans, is the thought of a centralized government telling me what is best for me and my family.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
i mean, he called me out for not posting my taxes, and i posted them quite clearly.

then he goes on to talk about killing the poor and killing anyone who wants to support the poor in an organized fashion.

i mean, i could understand voting against helping the poor schemes i disagree with, but to kill the people who support them and benefit from them "righteously"?

that kid is psycho and needs major help.
Click to expand...
And your taxes were wrong from your original claim.

Explain to me how you didn't get called out. LOL.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.
Click to expand...
And I call people who want a health care mandates worked into the taxes, moochers. What's your point? It's not a logical one...

As long as the government uses illegal taxes to steal from me, I'll steal right back.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
Fungus Gnat said:
One doesn't have to use a government service to benefit from it. In general social programs benefit society more than cost and are a lot cheaper than prisons. Food stamps for example provide a multiplier of economic stimulus for every dollar spent. Even Milton Friedman while disliking that the government runs these programs couldn't deny that they benefited everyone. His idea was to replace these government programs with a guaranteed minimum income system, funded with a negative income tax. Yes, wealth redistribution... the father of conservative economics is a socialist!!!!
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're getting at.

A guaranteed minimum income system is what a large percentage of this country is running on now, and that's why this country is going to financially collapse.

Taking from some to give to all never makes sense, regardless of the angle you approach it from.
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
If you are actually asking that question with seriousness, you're so far out of it, it's just not funny.

I'm not kidding. What the fuck is in your drinking water?
Click to expand...
InCognition said:
Not sure what you're getting at.

A guaranteed minimum income system is what a large percentage of this country is running on now, and that's why this country is going to financially collapse.

Taking from some to give to all never makes sense, regardless of the angle you approach it from.
Click to expand...
No, I really do not understand how in a Real Democracy, not this sham of a nation but you all seem to believe the illusion so in a nation that has a habit of bringing Democracy to the rest of the world how taxes decided upon by a majority would be theft of the minority in opposition.

The minimum wage you are referring to is set and controlled by Big Corp in the interest of Big Corp. He is referring to a completely different system in which the minimum wage would be set in the interest of the society -details you know?
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Also, taking from some to give to all doesn't make any sense if there is an even or somewhat even distribution of wealth. In a society where 20% of the people control 85% of the wealth- well actually That doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to Me at all! That means the huge majority of the society, 4/5 of the population only controls 1/5 of that society's wealth. How could that happen in a society that boasts equal opportunity? Make some sense of it for me, could you?
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
read the 16th amendment, you psycho mooch.
Click to expand...
Why, then, does the IRS, itself, say that compliance is voluntary?
Why has nobody ever been able to produce the law, statute or regulation that states that wages are subject to taxation?
Why did the Supreme Court say, "the 16th amendment gives no new power of taxation"?
What is the definition of income, when it comes to the 16th amend., income tax and the IRS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top