Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others but Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others...

IamAlejo · 06-24-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

By having a taxation system that favors the rich you're only making that class difference more extreme. A progressive tax would make that extreme difference more minimal and also ensure that a society's wealth would benefit the society, as opposed to a handful at the top. But it's that amoral system which you argue so strongly for. The one that gave people slavery and ensures some people are going to die because they can't afford to live.

Ummm...the US has a progressive tax system. You've lost me.

sleepy jack · 06-24-2009, 05:22 PM

I don't think it's progressive enough. I was more talking theoretically there, when you get into in practicality then yes it is technically progressive and technically the United States isn't even a capitalist country (in the same sense that there's never been a country that is completely socialist, communist, etc.) I was hoping this thread was more abstract but either way I think crash_override's assertion that the United States is overly-progressive as is is a bit silly considering the inequality of wealth in our society.

mr dave · 06-24-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

Bottom Line to me:
I can still get what I want and help others get what they want without telling anyone else what they can or can't do. Socialism is a bully. It says I (the government) know better then you and can do everything (slight hyperbole) better then you. I am not okay with that and neither are a lot of Americans, particularly those like me who have come from very humble beginnings. I've never felt like there was anything realistic I could not accomplish if I was patient and disciplined enough and though I have certainly fallen short of some of my goals I never felt like it was because the system held me back, it was because someone else out performed or outworked me.

Again it's about motivation & options to me:
I have less money, I have fewer options and if the more money I make, the higher I am taxed on each dollar, the less likely I am to work to my full potential.
Now I do respect the altruistic nature of the opposing view. Putting the basic needs of everyone about the freedom of choice of the few or at least lesser population. But I don't feel like that's necessary, I don't believe everyone deserves to be treated equal though. I think the rules should be the same for everyone, but those who abuse the system should not be a burden to those who enhance it.

I hate to sound heartless and I hope I don't:
Of course not all people on welfare or government assistance abuse the system. But many do. Sure not all wealthy people are generous and hard working, but many are, a much greater percentage then I've heard anyone here acknowledge.

i'm totally with you on this

ESPECIALLY in regards to true self-discipline.

on the other hand i AM heartless, especially when it comes to government assistance. there are some people who legitimately need it and that's fine, there are plenty of others who see it akin to an allowance just like the one they were 'supposed' to be getting from their parents so they can enjoy partying like they did when they were teenagers for as long as possible.

an active social life is not a fundamental human necessity. when i worked customer service for an american credit card company it always astounded me when we'd get monthly 'budget' breakdowns as to why this person couldn't make the minimum payment on their credit card. i only ever remember seeing a single budget (ONE) that had the individual living at a lower quality than myself (in 3 years at that job). everyone else had at least 1 car (if not 2 or 3), multiple phones, and basic cable, along with allowances for going out for meals once or twice a month.

so no... i'm not in favour of providing those 'needy' people with a chunk of my wealth (i've also been seeing the current north american economic downturn coming for about 5 years because of this attitude).

yes it would be nice if we could all live in some hippie technicolour dreamworld where everyone looks out for everyone else and we're all just one big happy family that lives happily ever after and no one has to grow old and die and everyone can be 17 forever and do what they want whenever they want.

the reality of the situation is, everyone get old, tired, and dead. as i get older and more tired i'm less inclined to give a hand out to someone who just wants to screw around for as long as possible. the government is not a babysitter.

crash_override · 06-24-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I don't think it's progressive enough. I was more talking theoretically there, when you get into in practicality then yes it is technically progressive and technically the United States isn't even a capitalist country (in the same sense that there's never been a country that is completely socialist, communist, etc.) I was hoping this thread was more abstract but either way I think crash_override's assertion that the United States is overly-progressive as is is a bit silly considering the inequality of wealth in our society.

You're basically saying the rich don't deserve to be rich. Your just taking away people's basic rights now. If your going to do all that you might as well change the name of the country why you're at it. Your idea of complete reform is not only implausable, but un-American.

sleepy jack · 06-24-2009, 06:50 PM

Um so? I'm pretty sure I said all that on the first page. I'm kind of surprised it took you this long to realize that I don't like/believe in classes.

IamAlejo · 06-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I don't think it's progressive enough. I was more talking theoretically there, when you get into in practicality then yes it is technically progressive and technically the United States isn't even a capitalist country (in the same sense that there's never been a country that is completely socialist, communist, etc.) I was hoping this thread was more abstract but either way I think crash_override's assertion that the United States is overly-progressive as is is a bit silly considering the inequality of wealth in our society.

The top 5% from the graph shown have roughly 20% of the income but pay oer 90% of the income tax. How much more progressive would you want it?

[and I agree that the numbers have changed from there, but for this argument I'm using the given numbers to issue an example to the point]

Son of JayJamJah · 06-24-2009, 07:09 PM

I have to say Ethan, as a "rich" person, the taxation system is definitely not slanted in my favor, I pay twice the percentage relative to my income in taxes as minimum wage workers.

Are you telling me you think I should pay more?

sleepy jack · 06-24-2009, 07:10 PM

In 2004 the top 5% was paying only a bit over half the income tax* - not 90% but they also have more income then the bottom 80% so...it's not exactly as progressive as it appears. If you receive more income then the bottom 80% all together then naturally you're going to be paying more in income tax.

*Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

sleepy jack · 06-24-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

I have to say Ethan, as a "rich" person, the taxation system is definitely not slanted in my favor, I pay twice the percentage relative to my income in taxes as minimum wage workers.

Are you telling me you think I should pay more?

Even if you were paying the highest tax bracket, 35% and (quick math here, federal minimum wage is 6.55, assuming they work a 46 hour week, which is the average amount of hours a person works per week then they make 301.30 a week, times that by four then by twelve then they're making 14,462.40 a year. Which places them in the 15% bracket.) So that means, assuming you're in the highest tax bracket, that your percentage is 2.3 times as much as there's - seems unfair right? But keep in mind if you're in the 35% tax bracket then you're also making $372,950 a year to their 14,462.40 a year. Which is 25 times as much income as they are, so paying 2.3 times more of a percentage isn't exactly a big deal no?

Son of JayJamJah · 06-24-2009, 07:26 PM

It's still unfair.

Property tax does not work that way, sales tax does not work that way, vice tax does not work that way. Why does income tax?

By the way that's only federal income tax your considering; more then 42% of our household income this year went directly to taxes. Furthermore how much income I make should be not be used against me. I make more then minimum wage workers because I got good grades in school, went to college for six years, worked my ass of for very little money, went back to college for 4 more at night to start a new career and worked my ass off putting in extra hours to be taken seriously and given a chance to make the money i eventually was able to. Essentially the first 35 years of my life working and scrambling to put myself in a position to not have to worry about money once I got this age, I should not be rewarded for that?

That all being said I don't mind paying more, especially if it helps other people, but it really strikes me as whiny and disrespectful when people tell me I should have to carry an even heavier percentage.

I know that's not what your doing and I know your position comes from an unselfish place not a selfish one, but I do want to relate how your perspective when take to an absolute makes me and people like me feel.