QFRTOriginally posted by: Future Shock
If you believe that everyone has the same opportunity to become CEO, then I suggest you go work a few more years.
Statistically, men who are 6'2"+ make a lot more than men who are 5'8" - just because they are taller and command more respect in meetings and sales calls. This applies across fields and age groups. Statistically speaking, that 5'8" man will NEVER have the same opportunities as the 6'2" man - because he can't create the same overpowering impression during a sales call. Companies know this - for example, to get a job as a salesman for EMC (makes of large computing equipment), you pretty much are required to have a background as a college football player or hockey player, and be over 6'. Just for the physical presence. (BTW - I read that in an interview with their CEO a few years back, they don't even try to hide it).
Then there is the intelligence issue - some of us have it naturally, some of us don't. Can't avoid that, and again, it is hugely limiting of career choices and opportunities if you don't.
Lastly, family connections and money has a HUGE impact, even today. Bill Gates got superrich because his mom was on charity boards in Seattle with the wives of IBM executives - most people cannot get involved in these charities unless you come from a certain social group. Only very rich families can afford to send their children to Harvard, Yale, etc. - and affirmative action and academic scholarships only have a limited number of slots. If you want to get your child into the right PRE-SCHOOL in NYC they require interviews that basically ask for your economic details and social connections (of the parents) as a pre-requisite for getting your child in...and starting up the rich Mahattanite's ladder to success.
We simply DON'T all have the same opportunities, and to pretend otherwise is a lie. Doesn't mean that every year, a small percentage of people WILL migrate up the socioeconomic ladder, through dint of hard work, luck, or inheritance...but it is unfortunately a declining percentage.
Future Shock
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
How about a woman who's only 5' tall? Unfortunately, her chances are probably even less of becoming a CEO. I have read that numerous places - height really helps you get places in the business world.Statistically, men who are 6'2"+ make a lot more than men who are 5'8" - just because they are taller and command more respect in meetings and sales calls. This applies across fields and age groups. Statistically speaking, that 5'8" man will NEVER have the same opportunities as the 6'2" man - because he can't create the same overpowering impression during a sales call. Companies know this - for example, to get a job as a salesman for EMC (makes of large computing equipment), you pretty much are required to have a background as a college football player or hockey player, and be over 6'. Just for the physical presence. (BTW - I read that in an interview with their CEO a few years back, they don't even try to hide it).
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
My issue is not with the rich paying more, but rather with what they consider rich. They really need to bump all the brackets up a bit and increase the tax rate to 50%+ to anything made over 1 million per year. Cause lets face it anything over 1 million is not really needed, but they should still get a portion of it.
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Having a flat tax would create a socialist system government. Lower income earners would lose a larger portion of their disposable incomes to the government and more people would depend on the government to maintain the economy.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
An isolated economy? What are you smoking?
Originally posted by: pinion9
Well, they we cut medicare/medicaid, welfare, SS....
People should make different choices with their lives. It isn't my fault the median is 45K a year. I know it isn't a reality, but I believe it is unfair that I pay more in taxes than my wife makes, yet we use the same services, etc.
I am at a point of diminishing returns. The more I work, the larger percentage they take. It makes it hardly worth it. It is no incentive to suceed when I know the craphead renter I used to have has 5 kids, doesn't work, smokes like a chimney, and my tax dollars pay for her to live. She is useless as a human being. She is no better than trash and should be treated as such.
Originally posted by: pinion9
Meanwhile some of my scumbag renters were out buying 65" TVs and $5k sofas to go with their minimum wage jobs. It is sickening. Doing away with SS should be first. I have an IRA and 401(k) as does my wife. We take care of our own things and do not depend on handouts.
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why put them to all that trouble? Why not, if they can no longer work, just kill them. Come on, you have the mentality to understand that.
As much as I like that idea, Moonbeam....
On a serious note, we simply tell everyone under a certain age that we will no longer be providing them with Social Security benefits. Surely, someone in their 40's will be able to save enough money by the time they are 65. We then calculate how much we owe to the rest of the population that will receive social security, reappropriate money from the welfare program to the social security, and voila! Problem solved
Originally posted by: TGS
Though I'm glad you've run into a handful of people abusing our welfare system and see fit to anecdotally throw everyone getting government assistance into that category.
You fail to realize for every one piece of "trash" that you can anecdotally conjure up, there are many more that are using that "breathing room" of government assistance to actually make a difference in their lives. It can make the difference between keeping your head above water, or sinking further into debt.
As for diminishing returns, that is a complete load of bull. Why would any business want to continue to grow if there were no profits to be made past a certain revenue point?
Also, it is *welfare* that is paying these people, not SS. So again I'm not clear on how abolishing SS will solve the problems of welfare abusers. Perhaps you can link that one together for me.
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: TGS
Though I'm glad you've run into a handful of people abusing our welfare system and see fit to anecdotally throw everyone getting government assistance into that category.
You fail to realize for every one piece of "trash" that you can anecdotally conjure up, there are many more that are using that "breathing room" of government assistance to actually make a difference in their lives. It can make the difference between keeping your head above water, or sinking further into debt.
As for diminishing returns, that is a complete load of bull. Why would any business want to continue to grow if there were no profits to be made past a certain revenue point?
Also, it is *welfare* that is paying these people, not SS. So again I'm not clear on how abolishing SS will solve the problems of welfare abusers. Perhaps you can link that one together for me.
1. Every person I ever rented to abused the welfare system in some way and spent their money on things they don't need. If you are on government assitance, you should NOT be entitled to things like telephones, cable, etc. So, it may be anecdotal, but is my experience. Not ONE person I have met on public assistance was worth a damn.
2. I said diminishing returns for me. My hourly rate drops quite far after a certain point. I said nothing about corporations.
3. I didn't mean to link SS and welfare. We need to do away with both systems.
EDIT: I see why you thought I linked the two. No, it was sort of a run on thought.
Originally posted by: the Chase
Wow- let's just convert to socialism right away and save the smaller steps.....
The rich(top 10%) should simply stop paying their taxes and let the Government jail them and take their possesions until they revise the tax code to be fairer than it is now. I think if they unified to do this change would come pretty quick....
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: tw1164
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
By your argument, the government punishes you for owning property. I mean, they make you pay property tax don't they? Why should owners of property have to pay tax when renters don't?
Landlords don't pay taxes, tenants do. I personally think that the property taxes are the most unfair type of taxes. As you grow old your income generally decreases but your property values increase (as do the tax rates). There are many retirees who struggle to pay their property taxes. When they fail to pay, the government comes and takes your home and sells it (often below "Fair Market Value") taking their money off the top and leaving you w/ the pennies that remain. You never really own your property/home you only lease it from the government.
Technically they both pay the taxes. The landlord can't just add on the entire tax to everyone's rent otherwise he wouldn't get an optimal amount of people living in his houses/apartments. So the landlord has to charge a lower rate (adding the tax on top) and the tenant has to pay a higher rate overall. That's not really what I was getting at with my previous argument, however. Taxes generally aren't in place for punishment, they're just used to provide revenue.
You've actually brought up a controversial point about whether to lock in property taxes to the amount you bought it at or whether to adjust it with the market value of the house. I'm personally fine with adjusting it with the value of the house. You may say that it's not fair because older people would start paying more as the value of the house rises but I think that argument isn't very good. They can always sell the house and use that money to move into a lower priced house. If the value of your house is increasing so much that it's hard for you to pay the taxes, I would think it would be profitable enough for you to move into a cheaper neighborhood.
Why put them to all that trouble? Why not, if they can no longer work, just kill them. Come on, you have the mentality to understand that.
As much as I like that idea, Moonbeam....
On a serious note, we simply tell everyone under a certain age that we will no longer be providing them with Social Security benefits. Surely, someone in their 40's will be able to save enough money by the time they are 65. We then calculate how much we owe to the rest of the population that will receive social security, reappropriate money from the welfare program to the social security, and voila! Problem solved