What's the counter argument for why we shouldn't tax the rich?

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I love ignorant Robin Hood economists.

Yeah, they're almost as naive as those who believe the rich got their wealth solely through hard work in a free market, and that they can become rich too if only they worked a little harder and didn't have to pay those damn taxes.

+1 for general truth.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, I just started my first "real" job a few months ago, and I am by no means rich, but I still feel a kick in the balls every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck and the government has screwed me out of 1/3 of my hard earned money.

33%? Shit man you gotta be making 7 figures...even then they dont pay that much.

/sarcasm

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Taxing the rich to create things like universal healthcare and free universal access to post-secondary education are wonderful ideas IMO.

Using the money to create a welfare state is not.

These seem to be two opposing statements...the more services the government makes available, the more control the government has of it's people via dependence.

Not necessarily. Heathcare and higher education are both optional, and IMO are far better investments overall than giving people welfare money or free housing (even jail makes me cringe, although there's really no humane remedy that I can think of). Heck, let people pay for better healthcare and education if they can afford it. They're also better investments than the military. Sure, it's great to have an army in the event that you need it. You just don't need an uber 1337 attack force that you use constantly for no good reason. In the end, however, I will fall back to my last point and say that people should be allowed to give to charity instead of paying taxes to the government (which to some extent currently exists anyway).

The problem is that money is power and when taxes are too regressive it creates an impossible paradox for the poor to ever break out of. That doesn't give people motivation to do anything other than commit a crime, steal to eat, and rot in jail.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SickBeast
people really don't need more than say $300,000 per year to live a very comfortable and very happy life.

Very untrue. Comfortable to you is not necessarily comfortable. $300,000 really isnt THAT much money. This is an extreme example, but if Bill Gates woke up to Oprah's income, he would jump off a building and slit his throat on the way down. Just an example. And who are WE to decide whats too much? Isnt a free society and capitalism a good thing?

You have a point, but do you really think it's fair that they get to have $billions while others are starving?

Money is power, and the last thing we need is too much money concentrated in too few people. Our governments pale in comparison to the financial clout of our corporations. They cannot even stop what's going on in the oil market right now. Their only present recourse is to invest in green technology, which isn't even really happening much right now in North America (probably because our governments are bankrupt, literally and morally). If the price of oil reaches a breaking point, the entire world will be starving while the select few that own oil companies will be loaded rich. Do you like the sound of that? You do need to eat, yes? Well, if we reach that breaking point soon the entire world will be in a recession. Even the Saudis are suffering from inflation right now.

Too much money in too few hands really in a true sense will mean that billions of people will die of starvation, and that is indeed the true end to flat-out capitalism without progressive taxation and some sort of government involvement (as much as the government makes me cringe).

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I realize that many of the uber-rich like Bill Gates are good people who do a great deal of humanitarian work with their money, it's just that I'm certain there are many others who do not.

So we should let the government decide and force the wealthy how to direct their money? For the love of God WHY? Do you really feel more government oversight and control of the people is a GOOD thing?

Because the rich are human beings just like anyone else, as in they are flawed. I hate government control as much as anyone else, trust me. Unfortunately we do need some sort of law, order, and governance in our society to prevent widespread anarchy, chaos, and imbalance. Perhaps it's my conscience telling me that the poor need the money to eat and survive more than the rich need the money for another Ferrari in their 60-car garage. Societies like Mexico are an example of what happens when a few rich people are allowed to become too rich. Would you want to live there? Would you feel safe living there, even if you were a multimillionaire? I know I wouldn't.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SickBeast
My one fear is in trusting government with any sort of money. Perhaps it would be best to just allow people to donate their tax money as they see fit to worthy causes.

/cheer

You just nullified all your above comments. Thank you I normally agree with most of what you say, but this post...anyway. Not like it matters

It's nice to be agreed with for once on here.

I'm an anarchist at heart, I just struggle to figure out what sort of government we actually need. I'd say we definitely need less government than we presently have in North America, the question is how much less and what do we replace it with?

 

[idiotekniQues]

it's pretty clear that wages in this country need to rise for the blue collar worker and lower class white collar worker.

 

[idiotekniQues]

also remember that wages are taxed in margins.

every wage earned at 10k-20k is taxed at a theoretical 15% (just for example these numbers are not accurate)
wages from 20k-40k are taxed at 20%
wages from 40k-100k are taxed at 25%

so keep that in mind when talking about tax brackets. even someone who makes 1 million a year, their first 20k will be taxed at 15%, their next 20k at 20%, etc, etc.

 

[WHAMPOM]

AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

Good old days? WWII? Korean War? The early stages of the Vietnam War? And the lowest tax bracket was dinged for 20%+ as well.

Good old days indeed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Wait, is the OP suggesting we don't tax them at all? That's just ridiculous.

All income, corporate or personal, earned or capital gains, should be taxed at the exact same rate. There would no room for arguing about who's footing the bill for what. Every dollar earned in this country uses the services government provides, every dollar should be taxed identically.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

I remember the days when it was 0%. But somehow the middle class believed the politicians when they said only the rich would be taxed of their income.

80 years later and here I am, square in the middle class seeing ~20% of my income taken by the feds, another 4-5% from my state, and dont forget another wonderful promise by politicians with SS. You know something that was originaly like a half a % of income but now 6.5%?

Middle class seeing 30+% of thier income raped from them, ironicially seeing a lot of that wealth flow up to the rich and their corporations via govt. Just the opposite of what was promised.

Funny how that works isnt it?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

When was this? It sounds close to communism.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

When was this? It sounds close to communism.

Post WWII and bless his heart JFK lowered it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

When was this? It sounds close to communism.

Post WWII and bless his heart JFK lowered it.

Heh. Few people remember that JFK, campaigning as a "true liberal," lowered top tier tax rates in order to spur the economy.

Of course, it was Eisenhower it kept that 90% top tier tax rate in order to pay off WWII's debts.

Another interesting thing is that RFK, also campaigning as a "true liberal" in 1968, promised to repeal all of LBJ's 'Great Society' programs. He favored community investment programs instead (like Obama does BTW).

And even better, it was Nixon who really made welfare what it was (until Clinton overhauled it), and he also tried to push through an honest-to-God nationwide socialized medicine program. And I'm talking "single payer," I'm talking about a real deal socialized medicine like Britain's.

99% of modern political rhetoric is total bullshit. I mean, the KKK votes for the party of Lincoln these days... that should be everyone's first clue.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The more taxes corporations have to pay, the less they can spend on investing, which means less jobs for ME and any other skilled laborers, because without investment we won't have anything new to work on.

Hint: if corporations are investing money, it can usually be done in such a way that taxes are deferred until the investment is profitable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, I just started my first "real" job a few months ago, and I am by no means rich, but I still feel a kick in the balls every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck and the government has screwed me out of 1/3 of my hard earned money.

Your problem is you're looking at the wrong number. Don't look at the gross. It's an imaginary number that has little connection to your real world worth. Look instead at the net, and thank America you live in a country where you, in a safe, healthy entry-level job working 40 hours or so per week, can take home more money than 90% of the people in the world, many of whom spend their much shorter lives working 80+ hours per week in extremely unhealthy, uncomfortable, or dangerous conditions.

Or, if you just can't get past the fact your net is smaller than your gross, you can move to some third-world hell-hole like Guatemala where you can keep almost all of your check. It will be peanuts compared to your current check, you'll work a hell of a lot harder, and your job will be more dangerous, but at least you won't be paying so much in taxes. As for me, I'm happy here. I'd much rather have a clean 64 ounce Big Gulp that's 60% full than a filthy one ml thimble that's 100% full. Your mileage may vary.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, I just started my first "real" job a few months ago, and I am by no means rich, but I still feel a kick in the balls every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck and the government has screwed me out of 1/3 of my hard earned money.

Your problem is you're looking at the wrong number. Don't look at the gross. It's an imaginary number that has little connection to your real world worth. Look instead at the net, and thank America you live in a country where you, in a safe, healthy entry-level job working 40 hours or so per week, can take home more money than 90% of the people in the world, many of whom spend their much shorter lives working 80+ hours per week in extremely unhealthy, uncomfortable, or dangerous conditions.

Or, if you just can't get past the fact your net is smaller than your gross, you can move to some third-world hell-hole like Guatemala where you can keep almost all of your check. It will be peanuts compared to your current check, you'll work a hell of a lot harder, and your job will be more dangerous, but at least you won't be paying so much in taxes. As for me, I'm happy here. I'd much rather have a clean 64 ounce Big Gulp that's 60% full than a filthy one ml thimble that's 100% full. Your mileage may vary.

Yep, just bend over and take it with a smile and then thank em....oh and don't forget to invite them back next check... cause it's all for our benefit...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, I just started my first "real" job a few months ago, and I am by no means rich, but I still feel a kick in the balls every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck and the government has screwed me out of 1/3 of my hard earned money.

Your problem is you're looking at the wrong number. Don't look at the gross. It's an imaginary number that has little connection to your real world worth. Look instead at the net, and thank America you live in a country where you, in a safe, healthy entry-level job working 40 hours or so per week, can take home more money than 90% of the people in the world, many of whom spend their much shorter lives working 80+ hours per week in extremely unhealthy, uncomfortable, or dangerous conditions.

Or, if you just can't get past the fact your net is smaller than your gross, you can move to some third-world hell-hole like Guatemala where you can keep almost all of your check. It will be peanuts compared to your current check, you'll work a hell of a lot harder, and your job will be more dangerous, but at least you won't be paying so much in taxes. As for me, I'm happy here. I'd much rather have a clean 64 ounce Big Gulp that's 60% full than a filthy one ml thimble that's 100% full. Your mileage may vary.

Yep, just bend over and take it with a smile and then thank em....oh and don't forget to invite them back next check... cause it's all for our benefit...

No, not all for our benefit. The fiasco in Iraq, for example, is for the benefit of defense contractors and other BushCo patrons, one of countless examples of irresponsible government spending. Sucks to be an American I guess, huh?

Imperfect as it is, that's the price one pays for living in a democracy (especially a democracy where we pretend corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that money is synonymous with free speech). Fortunately, unlike you and your leadership, I believe in paying our bills, so I will continue to support paying whatever level of taxes is necessary to cover the spending approved by our elected representatives. While I certainly want them to spend less, I'm not going to wish away their irresponsibility by foisting the bill off on our children. Instead, I will pay my taxes and focus on the fact that my take home pay makes me one of the richest people in the world, providing an extraordinary standard of living. I'll let the greedy people mope and wail about their glasses being only 60% full.

Cheers! :beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, I just started my first "real" job a few months ago, and I am by no means rich, but I still feel a kick in the balls every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck and the government has screwed me out of 1/3 of my hard earned money.

Your problem is you're looking at the wrong number. Don't look at the gross. It's an imaginary number that has little connection to your real world worth. Look instead at the net, and thank America you live in a country where you, in a safe, healthy entry-level job working 40 hours or so per week, can take home more money than 90% of the people in the world, many of whom spend their much shorter lives working 80+ hours per week in extremely unhealthy, uncomfortable, or dangerous conditions.

Or, if you just can't get past the fact your net is smaller than your gross, you can move to some third-world hell-hole like Guatemala where you can keep almost all of your check. It will be peanuts compared to your current check, you'll work a hell of a lot harder, and your job will be more dangerous, but at least you won't be paying so much in taxes. As for me, I'm happy here. I'd much rather have a clean 64 ounce Big Gulp that's 60% full than a filthy one ml thimble that's 100% full. Your mileage may vary.

Yep, just bend over and take it with a smile and then thank em....oh and don't forget to invite them back next check... cause it's all for our benefit...

No, not all for our benefit. The fiasco in Iraq, for example, is for the benefit of defense contractors and other BushCo patrons, one of countless examples of irresponsible government spending. Sucks to be an American I guess, huh?

Imperfect as it is, that's the price one pays for living in a democracy (especially a democracy where we pretend corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that money is synonymous with free speech). Fortunately, unlike you and your leadership, I believe in paying our bills, so I will continue to support paying whatever level of taxes is necessary to cover the spending approved by our elected representatives. While I certainly want them to spend less, I'm not going to wish away their irresponsibility by foisting the bill off on our children. Instead, I will pay my taxes and focus on the fact that my take home pay makes me one of the richest people in the world, providing an extraordinary standard of living. I'll let the greedy people mope and wail about their glasses being only 60% full.

Cheers! :beer:

lol - how did I know you were going to whine about Iraq. It's like it's a programmed response from you people.

While you support paying our bills, I support paying our bills AND spending less so people can keep more of what they earn. The problem here is that you seem to think that increasing taxes will somehow fix things, which is naive at best. It's been shown time and time again that if the gov't takes in more money - it spends more money. That has to stop.


lol @ your glass % full comment. All we've seen is negativity from your types and yet you have the gall to suggest the "greedy"(whatever that means) being negative.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

Good old days? WWII? Korean War? The early stages of the Vietnam War? And the lowest tax bracket was dinged for 20%+ as well.

Good old days indeed.

Yup, those days when the Middle Class grew to it's highest ever, 1 Job would buy a House and support a whole family.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep, just bend over and take it with a smile and then thank em....oh and don't forget to invite them back next check... cause it's all for our benefit...

No, not all for our benefit. The fiasco in Iraq, for example, is for the benefit of defense contractors and other BushCo patrons, one of countless examples of irresponsible government spending. Sucks to be an American I guess, huh?

Imperfect as it is, that's the price one pays for living in a democracy (especially a democracy where we pretend corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that money is synonymous with free speech). Fortunately, unlike you and your leadership, I believe in paying our bills, so I will continue to support paying whatever level of taxes is necessary to cover the spending approved by our elected representatives. While I certainly want them to spend less, I'm not going to wish away their irresponsibility by foisting the bill off on our children. Instead, I will pay my taxes and focus on the fact that my take home pay makes me one of the richest people in the world, providing an extraordinary standard of living. I'll let the greedy people mope and wail about their glasses being only 60% full.

Cheers! :beer:

lol - how did I know you were going to whine about Iraq. It's like it's a programmed response from you people.

Doh! Maybe because it's the single most glaring example to refute your lame "cause it's all for our benefit" dig.

While you support paying our bills, I support paying our bills AND spending less so people can keep more of what they earn. The problem here is that you seem to think that increasing taxes will somehow fix things, which is naive at best. It's been shown time and time again that if the gov't takes in more money - it spends more money. That has to stop.

Learn to read, Sir Cad. I also addressed spending. The difference is I live in the real world where, like it or not, Uncle Sam is spending more than it collects. You can wish and hope and click your ruby slippers together in your Pollyanna BushWorld, but it doesn't change the reality today. I want to pay the bills today and reduce spending. You want to stick our kids with the bills and reduce spending. Guess which approach is more responsible here in the real world?

lol @ your glass % full comment. All we've seen is negativity from your types and yet you have the gall to suggest the "greedy"(whatever that means) being negative.

"You people." "Your types." ROFL! You're such a child.

Try to turn it around all you want, the fact is I pay my taxes and celebrate living in a country where we can have so much and be so prosperous. It's "your types" (*snicker*) whining and crying about ebil taxes, not me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

Good old days? WWII? Korean War? The early stages of the Vietnam War? And the lowest tax bracket was dinged for 20%+ as well.

Good old days indeed.

Yup, those days when the Middle Class grew to it's highest ever, 1 Job would buy a House and support a whole family.

Absolutely! If your wife worked in the factory while you were slogging through the trenches, you could really put a bundle away too.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
AAHHH! Remember the good old days when the top tax bracket was at 90%? And rich bastards did not have the money left over to bribe politicians!

When was this? It sounds close to communism.

Post WWII and bless his heart JFK lowered it.

Uh, ya, righties love to mention JFK lowered the top tax rate - but don't like to say what he lowered it to, from 91% to 70%. If you are so happy with his policy, want to go back to it?

 

[40sTheme]

Now, in this post, I'm not speaking for people who make more money than they deserve like professional athletes.
Has anyone who supports high taxes on the rich ever CREATED anything and been rewarded for it? What about the people at Intel? What if you were them? You and your team make this great new processing architecture, put it out on the market, make the money you deserve and then BOOM! YOU'RE RICH, so the POOR obviously DESERVE YOUR money. I won't understand why people think the poor deserve the actual producer's money.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yep, just bend over and take it with a smile and then thank em....oh and don't forget to invite them back next check... cause it's all for our benefit...

No, not all for our benefit. The fiasco in Iraq, for example, is for the benefit of defense contractors and other BushCo patrons, one of countless examples of irresponsible government spending. Sucks to be an American I guess, huh?

Imperfect as it is, that's the price one pays for living in a democracy (especially a democracy where we pretend corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that money is synonymous with free speech). Fortunately, unlike you and your leadership, I believe in paying our bills, so I will continue to support paying whatever level of taxes is necessary to cover the spending approved by our elected representatives. While I certainly want them to spend less, I'm not going to wish away their irresponsibility by foisting the bill off on our children. Instead, I will pay my taxes and focus on the fact that my take home pay makes me one of the richest people in the world, providing an extraordinary standard of living. I'll let the greedy people mope and wail about their glasses being only 60% full.

Cheers! :beer:

lol - how did I know you were going to whine about Iraq. It's like it's a programmed response from you people.

Doh! Maybe because it's the single most glaring example to refute your lame "cause it's all for our benefit" dig.

While you support paying our bills, I support paying our bills AND spending less so people can keep more of what they earn. The problem here is that you seem to think that increasing taxes will somehow fix things, which is naive at best. It's been shown time and time again that if the gov't takes in more money - it spends more money. That has to stop.

Learn to read, Sir Cad. I also addressed spending. The difference is I live in the real world where, like it or not, Uncle Sam is spending more than it collects. You can wish and hope and click your ruby slippers together in your Pollyanna BushWorld, but it doesn't change the reality today. I want to pay the bills today and reduce spending. You want to stick our kids with the bills and reduce spending. Guess which approach is more responsible here in the real world?

lol @ your glass % full comment. All we've seen is negativity from your types and yet you have the gall to suggest the "greedy"(whatever that means) being negative.

"You people." "Your types." ROFL! You're such a child.

Try to turn it around all you want, the fact is I pay my taxes and celebrate living in a country where we can have so much and be so prosperous. It's "your types" (*snicker*) whining and crying about ebil taxes, not me.

Or maybe it's what you libs do when called on whatever BS you were spouting.

Yeah, the "real world" where you think that raising taxes will "fix" things, when in reality if the gov't takes more money - they spend more money. But if you wish to continue to live in fantasy land...I can't stop you.

:roll: I'm not whining about taxes. You leftists are the one's always whining about how "the rich" aren't paying their fair share....etc. Just because I don't buy into that BS doesn't mean I'm whining about "ebil taxes". Also, just because I don't buy your emotional crap about not looking at taxes...just thank the gov't...etc does not mean I'm whining about "ebil taxes". But you already knew that...but couldn't resist trying to throw it out there...

 

[Excelsior]

Yeah, the "real world" where you think that raising taxes will "fix" things, when in reality if the gov't takes more money - they spend more money. But if you wish to continue to live in fantasy land...I can't stop you.

Actually, if the last 7 years have shown us anything its that it doesn't matter how much money the government receives. It'll just borrow all it can and spend like there is no tomorrow. The sad thing is this is coming from a republican administration...a party which repeatedly runs on smaller government and cutting spending. Its pathetic really.

So its you and the rest of the republicans who are living in fantasy land. If our country had a FICO score, I'd hate to see it...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
when in reality if the gov't takes more money - they spend more money.

Reality land is where the government spends more money regardless and either raises taxes or borrows more. The government hasn't cut spending in...er....ever....so the solution is to simply borrow more. You pay for it in more ways than just increased taxes.