I'll only respond to the sections of this post that are worthy of a response, instead of the "I banged your wife" bullshit. Some of us (while apparently not all) are better than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clint Eastwood
What's forcing them to be poorer? Bringing their total net worth from one hundred million dollars to ninety-eight million dollars?
Why do you think that only people who are worth a hundred million dollars get taxed extra? I showed you proof that even somebody who makes $75,000 will pay more than $17k in taxes, while somebody who makes $20k will get money from the other taxpayers.
Quote:
Income should be redistributed.
Not in a Capitalist economy. If you'd like to live in a Socialist economy, go ahead -- I'll tell you what, even. You give me your Social Security card so I can make sure that you never have a voice in American government, and I will personally come pack all your stuff into boxes and help pay for your move. I will lovingly wrap your knick-knacks in bubble-paper. Deal?
Quote:
It's not fair that so many people have morbidly obese amounts of income whereas so many more people live in poverty, lower, or middle-class.
It is when the vast majority of those people have earned what they have, whether it be a little or a lot.
Quote:
No. Did I ever tell you your examples completely suck?
What's wrong, didn't understand it? Somebody has the ability to give more, so they should be forced to give more -- that's exactly what you're advocating with over-taxation of the more successful. Why not apply that across the board? Why not have more muscular people be required to work harder for the same amount of pay, because they can? Why not have smarter people be required to take more difficult tests in school, because they can?
Quote:
Yes, you kind of did. You said that the wealthy earned their money, while simultaneously making no mention of anybody besides the wealthy.
I said that the wealthy earned their money, without mentioning anybody besides the wealthy, and you automatically assume that I said something else entirely that does include other people. No, I didn't. I didn't say anything about anybody besides the wealthy. But if you'd like -- people earn the money they have. If they're wealthy, chances are high that they deserve to be wealthy. If they're poor, chances are high that they deserve to be poor.
Now please stop attempting to fabricate opposing arguments, and argue against what I said instead of what you supposedly "understood".
Quote:
Who says they're more successful?
Their checkbook. You know, having more money usually reflects financial success.
Quote:
Think about Wall Street, the banks, the automobile industry.
The companies that were bailed out by taxpayer dollars? You blame the companies for mismanaging their money, but not the government for giving them taxpayer money to spend as they see fit?
Quote:
Like things that cost extra, or things that aren't covered at all, that shouldn't cost extra or should be covered. Things like that. If you need a specific example, just look at your own health insurance.
I asked for examples -- do you have the ability to provide any examples to back up your claim, or do you not?
Quote:
I didn't say it was your problem. Nothing is your problem, because you don't give a damn about anything.
Finally, you're correct. I give a damn about my own problems and nobody else's -- if I do choose to give a damn about somebody else's problems, it's just that -- a choice. And I have the right to be concerned about myself. Unfortunately, the federal government had decided to infringe upon individual freedom and force people to give up individual rights for "the common good".
Quote:
Way more than half a dozen. There's about two dozen people in little old Delaware who make way over fifty million dollars.
They personally make over fifty million dollars per year? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Not that their company makes that much, but that they make that much.
Quote:
It's their job to regulate the economy, though. They've been doing a bang up job, huh?
I've never seen you advocate for less government control, but I have seen you complain about the economy, even though the abundance of government control is what put the economy into the toilet.
Quote:
Actually, yes they are. I can give you plenty of examples of jobs where nobody gets paid. One is called volunteering.
Volunteering isn't a job. That's why it's called [i]volunteering[i]. A job -- even according to a dictionary -- is a task one does in return for compensation. If you don't get compensation, it's not a job.
Quote:
I never said I work out. I said I exercise. Working out implies weight training. I hate weight training. And I'm not taking eighteen credits, I'm taking thirteen. And at the moment, I'm not working. Stop assuming that you know me.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the millions upon millions of people who have taken as many credits as they could, worked as much as they could, kept up with physical fitness, and still had time. That's called "putting yourself through college", and it sucks, but it works. You're not the only one who's ever done it, kid.
Quote:
Things that aren't necessities? My grandparents having a roof over their heads isn't necessary?
Your grandparents having their own place of residence isn't a necessity.
Quote:
It's not an investment if you're going to community college. It's cheaper, and I still can't afford it yet.
It's still an investment. Your paying money and time in, hoping to get a good return in the future.
Quote:
I would, but if I drank as much as I need, my cells would drown, and I would die.
You would die if you drank as much water as you need to work all day in, what, ninety, hundred degree heat? That's odd -- I worked for more than two years in a climate in which temperatures climbed to over a hundred and fifty degrees, and I'm not dead. And I drank at least three or four gallons of water every day, without even noticing how much I was drinking. Hell, even Basic Training in Missouri entailed drinking a quart of water every hour we were awake, and I survived that just fine.
Quote:
I'd have to do it constantly, all day, every day, for about thirty years.
You know how I mentioned working "smarter, harder, or longer"? Doing it all day, every day would be "working longer". You could also work harder -- bust your ass -- or, even better, work smarter -- save up and buy a bigger lawnmower, start your own business, hire other people, etc. There are plenty of businesses that do nothing but lawn care and landscaping, and they started with somebody mowing lawns.
Found something interesting, as well: According to economist Walter E. Williams, 4% (1/25) Americans (11 million) are millionaires. According to the U.S. Trust survey, the wealthiest Americans worked an average of 56 hours/wk for their first 29 working years. Less than 11% of them inherited their wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha Weapon
Not true. Private businesses would not produce streetlights and other services because of the 'free rider' principle.
First, are streetlights "necessary"? Second, if people wanted them, they could easily form a small conglomerate to purchase the services and goods that they deemed necessary, without involving the citizens that don't use them. Say, if a city wanted streetlights down their main drag, they could put a toll on either end of the main drag, to only charge the people that use that road, instead of forcing the people who lived on the outskirts to pay for something that they don't use.
Quote:
One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do.
The government does not have a mandate to do anything but protect its citizens.
Quote:
Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.
Toll roads don't charge people that don't use the toll roads. Why must other government services charge people that don't use them?
Quote:
It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes.
Says who? Are you telling me that everybody who has ever stolen anything has always done it strictly for personal gain? What about the situations I posted -- somebody stealing to feed their family? Or even to purchase an addictive drug, because the withdrawal would kill them?
Quote:
Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal?
Other than the government, not really, but you don't have evidence otherwise, either. Not that fits every situation.
Quote:
Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle.
According to the definition of stealing, the end doesn't matter -- stealing is a means with an irrelevant end. So you're saying that the government stealing is alright, but a citizen stealing is not?
Quote:
Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence.
First, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. We don't vote on our laws, we appoint people to represent us that vote on our laws. Second, the United States has always lived under the idea that mob rule doesn't apply -- that the will of the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. Think back into history -- if the majority of the population supported racial segregation, does that mean it didn't violate any individual rights?
Quote:
Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money?
I really don't know where you got that from what you quoted. Health insurance is not a necessity, as one can receive healthcare without insurance, and without money. Obama's plan is labeled as "healthcare", but it isn't -- it's health insurance. Anybody in America -- even people who aren't Americans, for cryin' out loud -- can go to the hospital and receive care.
Quote:
The government takes money in a different manner from robbers ...
How? They take it out of your paycheck without your consent, and if you manage to have them take less then they think they should, they come to your house with guns and arrest you. First they steal through covertness, then they steal through force or threat of force.
Quote:
The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct?
They don't just not tax them, they redistribute other taxpayers' money to them.
Quote:
And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.
Says who? Think like a mugger for a minute. You see two people walking down the street, and you want to rob one of them. One of them is wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. The other is wearing a three-piece suit. Which is your score? How do muggers not rob people with the "ability" to pay more?
Quote:
Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force.
That's opinion. Facts counter that argument -- areas with more firearms rights have less violent crime, etc.
Quote:
As a side note, who or what funds the police?
Like I said, the only thing that the government is mandated to do is protect its citizens. Police forces are protection.
Quote:
If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.
Just because they are asked for money for it does not at all mean that it's limited. They can limit themselves, sure, but whether somebody makes twenty million a year or twenty thousand, they have the same access to healthcare.
Quote:
Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?
Justify? Why? I don't need to justify why something isn't a government obligation -- not in America. Here, we are supposed to have to justify why something is.
But if, say, I was in a different country with a different set of rules. Why should my money be covertly or forcibly taken without consent (stolen) from me to pay for services for somebody who cannot or does not pay for their own? I have a right to keep the money I earn, not have it redistributed to those less successful.
Quote:
People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.
You are considering the idea that government-forced income redistribution is the only way for poor people to get money, and completely discounting charity, especially from the United States, which has the most charitable people in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T.G. Oskar
Of course, if you look at it on the amount they have to pay, it's a pretty hefty amount (compare 7% of someone whose income is, say, $12,000 to someone who must spend 10% of $300,000 yearly income on taxes), but it looks very differently when you take it on percentage.
Not really -- somebody who makes $300,000 would be taxed closer to 35%, not 10%.
Quote:
I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed).
PR ... You live in Puerto Rico? Cool.
Quote:
As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.
You're also referring to PR taxes, not federal taxes -- I'd imagine that PR taxes are much like state taxes, with much lower rates (and thus, many more deductibles and much higher differences in rates) than federal taxes.
Quote:
However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.
It's different with federal taxes -- there aren't many tax credits, an only deductions for certain things. (Credit = you get money; Deduction = you don't have to pay taxes on this money)
Quote:
Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing.
Except that they pay such a disproportionate amount in taxes -- so much more than their fair share -- that even if they earned enough deductions to be taxed at a reasonable rate (which would be quite a bit), they would still be pulling their own weight.
Quote:
Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation.
It'd be a deduction, as opposed to a credit, but yeah ...
Quote:
Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company.
If you get something for it, it's an investment (and thereby taxable), not a donation.
Quote:
For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share.
Legally, that would be considered an investment. You mention fraud a little later (I'll just address it here instead of quoting everything and making this an even longer post), and that would be exactly that -- fraud. Even if somebody got away with receiving some type of compensation for a "donation", whether it be a position, goods, services, etc., and it wasn't taxed, they would be completely screwed when they were audited. Not only would they be taxed on their "donation" like they should have been anyway, they would be forced to give up their position within the company, since they got it through illegal means (tax evasion), and have to pay fines for their crime.
Quote:
Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual.
The deductions are so few and the rate so disproportionately high that this would be nearly impossible, unless a wealthy person gave up almost all of their money. Like I said, they wouldn't get credits, they'd get deductions -- if I made a million dollars a year and gave a hundred thousand to charity, I'd be taxed on $900,000. The only way to fall into a lower tax bracket would be to give away nearly all of my money.
Quote:
What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.
The top 1% of wage earners in America earn about 17% of the wages -- but they pay 37% of the taxes. If they paid even half of their tax burden, they'd still be paying more than their fair share.
I advocate "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich pay too much in taxes now. As I said before, I want everybody to pay their fair share -- whether they're lower class or upper class. If federal taxes were disproportionately overtaxing the lower class, I'd have the same problem.
Quote:
How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax.
I'm not sure I understand you here. I support a flat tax. Now, if somebody wants to give to charity so they fall into a lower tax bracket, that's no problem -- like I said, it's not like they'll have the money but not pay taxes on it. If they want to do something illegal and get compensated for their "donation", I would have a problem with that, as it would be a fraudulent transaction and tax evasion.
The way it is now, though, I have a big problem with -- those who make more money are having their income redistributed to those who make less. As I pointed out, somebody who makes $20k/yr will get about $3600 from their fellow taxpayers -- not contributing less because they make less, but actually creating an even bigger drain on the country.
Quote:
Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.
I'm all for fairness -- those who earn more should of course contribute more, as long as it's proportionate. Somebody that earns twice as much as I do should contribute twice as much as I do, not three or four times as much. And while there are deductions that lower a person's taxable income, their taxable income is also their usable income, and if they take every deduction they can get, sure they won't be paying much, but they will have very little to live on.
Quote:
In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea).
Hahahah, good luck!
Quote:
Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.
I'm not familiar with "gatekeeping", care to elaborate?
Quote:
Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? ... But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.
My main issue is this: Change is not always good. All too many people are chomping at the bit for "change", without realizing that a lot of it is change for the worse.
Say, you have a car. Your car is a piece of crap. You need a new car. Are you going to go out and get another piece of crap, paying much more for it, just because it's different? Hell no, you're going to be smarter than that. You're going to realize that, even though it's not the best, your car still gets you from point A to point B. You're going to either replace a few things on your car or shop around until you find the best alternative -- without overpaying, and without jumping at the chance to get a new car just because it's different. When you have a crappy car, a lot of other cars look better -- that doesn't mean that they are better, they just look better. The person that immediately trades his car for a different one will soon realize that he didn't get a better car, just a different car, and now he's paying more for a crappy car again.
