Why not tax the Rich?

This isnt about fairness, this is about EVERYONE's collective well-being. The money has to come from somewhere, rich people have the most of it, we have to stop spending money we don't have by either lowering expenses or upping taxes.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Nugamer

The only thing to this is that taxes are percentage based, and tax cuts and tax write offs are only fair if properly used and administered, I can't say for sure, but speculation abound leads to the possibility that its not even and right enough, something is wrong if someone has a full time job and cannot support his family, thats all I do know for sure.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

I'm not sure what math you are using, but a % is the same "proportion” regardless of the value X.

Don’t give me that “collective well being…” nonsense. That’s socialist philosophy; it’s a philosophy of decay and chaos.

Perhaps you need little bit of Ayn Rand thinking in your life; for starters, read Atlas Shrugged.

Anyway, back to tax rates now…

Our current tax code is composed of several tax brackets, which place the wealthy at approximately 35%; a comparable disadvantage to those taxed as lower income brackets.

Ask yourself these two questions in earnest:

1. At what point will you be satisfied that wealthy folks have paid their “fair” share?

2. How much taxation is enough?

3. Do you think we should have tax schemes that parallel Europe?

I’ve already pointed out in my previous post how this will surely work against you…

You can tax the wealthy to your hearts content, but it will be to your determent. Whatever your view of a “fair” taxation scheme; whatever rate you settle on, it will only increase the working stiff’s cost of living.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to keep the wealthy from passing those costs onto the working stiff, i.e. they will absorb that cost at the retail end of the market’s spectrum.

As I said before, visit a friend in Europe see his current standard of living and visit a wealthy man and see his. You will find the working stiff living with miniature IKEA furniture in cramped apartments and the wealthy man living in great comfort and opulence.

What ever you decide as part of the working class, whatever your final tax scheme; you will absorb the cost of any tax hike on the wealthy. And, if you think you can block those options; if you think you can somehow ruin his day, think again my friend!

An honest wealthy man, a self-made millionaire, is not successful because he is a fool; he is successful only because he is determined to succeeded and maintain that upper hand in the market place; he has an advantage over those caught-up or relegated to working for someone for the rest of their lives.

There is nothing anyone can do or say to hold him responsible for the failures of others or their misfortune. We are not our brother’s keeper; we are free men, in free country, with choices in the market place. Trade at will!


When push comes to shove, its survival of the fittest!

"Life, Liberty, & Property Rights."

Did a make a mathmatical claim of some sort, all I said was tax write offs and other things alter % rules, and that I don't know all the rules so I asked because of how many times I've heard of things along the nature of the abuse of any tax laws and loopholes.

Survival of the fittest in in a culture of differing social classes is hardly fitting, If the rich want to keep their businesses they need workers too.

I'm not sure what has you so riled by anything I've said, but I'm pretty sure you've read more into anything I said.

The only statement I actually claimed was a problem with income levels for people who have full time jobs but get paid jack shit, and that is usually for the benefit of the rich, but with insurance issues and the like we are all getting screwed.

I highly respect hard working people, but I don't condone abusive authority figures when people can't fight back for fear of losing a job. You talk about survival of the fittest, well then you end up with a postal worker changing your fitness level.

"Don’t give me that “collective well being…” nonsense. That’s socialist philosophy; it’s a philosophy of decay and chaos."

We wouldn't know no one has managed to care enough to find out, and we do know where the survival of the fittest has us, decay (especially of people's precious morals) and chaos.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Care to expound on tht last part?

"Life, Liberty, & Property Rights."

Socialist ideals lead to decay & chaos for obvious reason; I will give you a stark example:

Cuba

This country is what it is because of its property rights philosophy.

In 1961, in Habana, Fidel’s cronies stormed into my father’s home & business, they claimed his property as that of the State; they claimed is for the “well being of the people.”

Men who resisted were shot.

With two kids and a wife, he fled Cuba for Miami; he set down his bags and started anew. He came to a country of a different language, but one with free markets, one where men could trade freely without coercion… In spite of his disadvantage in language, he worked, saved, and started a business. My father is long dead now… and I’m so glad he made the right choice to leave.

He new they could take his property, but they could not take his spirit and self-determinism.

You ask, “Where has survival of the fittest left us?”

It has brought us to free markets, fueled by individual self-interest, that have placed us at the top of the food chain; it has enhanced and lengthened our lives.

My father could have stayed and embraced the ideals of the collective, “for the well-being of the people.” He could have resisted and been shot.
He did not choose to leave for the sake of anyone but himself. He acted on self-interest; he chose freedom!

My father made the wisest “choice.”

Taxation is not much different than having the State seize your property for the “well being of the people.”

If taxed to a breaking point, the wealthy will choose as my father did.

They will refuse a brand of taxation that holds them responsible for the actions or inaction of unwilling or unable.

"Life, Liberty, & Property Rights."

And liberalism leads to the Great Depression, I would note that while the entire world had 30% unemployment, Stalin's soviet economy was booming.

The simple truth is that obviously we must have a free market, but gov intervention is necessary. The question is : how much gov?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

But see, survival of the fittest does not allow for rules, and the "free" market you speak of does have rules.

Not to be disrespectful but your father practiced plain old survival, coming here gave rise to opporunity allowed by rules that restrict a survival of the fittest mentality. Its just not enforced enought when people start fucking other people over because its the survival of the fittest.

This country is but 220+ years old, it has already experieced some pretty bleak times in terms of the prosperity of the free market, we meddle in foreign affairs not to help others so much as to help ourselves, and by doing so help people like saddam gas people then call him a war criminal and take him out. This is sickening to me, but it is the survival of the fittest.

We are a nation of many, survival of the fittest is a individualist notion. Stuff like Enron where hard working people get the shaft is what I specifically refer to when I speak of the bad that mentality leads to. A government that lies to its people and commits crimes in foreign lands. A government run by big business that understands and lives soley by that mentality. Manipulation, lies, backstabbing, are things that come of it.

Your father's country was practicing a survival of the fittest mentality, and your family was unable to fight them, does that make them unfit by your own philosophy, or victims of savages?

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

This is worthy of a whole new string... See my new string post.

Cheers,

"Life, Liberty, & Property Rights."

Swedes propose a tax on men.

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A group of Swedish parliamentarians proposed levying a "man tax" to cover the social cost of violence against women.
"It must be obvious to all of us that society has a huge problem with male violence against women and that has a cost," Left Party deputy Gudrun Schyman told Swedish radio on Monday.
"We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility," said Schyman, one of the party members to sign the motion for debate on the new tax.
Sweden already has the highest taxes in the European Union as a percentage of gross domestic product to pay for its famous but hard-pushed cradle-to-grave welfare program.
It is also one of the world's most advanced nations in terms of gender equality, but Schyman said in a headline-hitting 2002 speech that discrimination in Sweden followed "the same pattern" as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

"Life, Liberty, & Property Rights."

1. Health care should be sponsored by tax dollars.
2. Education, including college, should be sponsored by tax dollars.
3. Trade schools should also be sponsored by tax dollars.
4. Health care and Education should be contingent on being a working member of the society and filing taxes yearly to renew a health care/education card. Children would be covered along with their parents. The elderly would still be covered by social security. (By the way, all politicians should share the same social security we have. They’d have a vested interest to see it work that way.) This in no way prevents the rich from seeking health care or education elsewhere.
5. Welfare would not need to exist if health care and education were government subsidized. Adults of working age unable to work for several years due to health reasons would have the option of purchasing low cost insurance based on their assets. Prisoners would have the same option, although at a higher cost. (Why should they get free education and health care for breaking the law?)
6. Members of society earning, inheriting, or winning less than a million dollars yearly should be taxed at a flat rate.
7. Any amount earned, inherited, or won that exceeds a million dollars yearly should be taxed at 95%. Tabloid entertainers do not need to earn $750,000 monthly, neither to ball players.
8. Corporation profit margins that exceed a standard percentage of growth should be taxed at 95%. (This would amply pay for both health care and education)
9. Higher tariffs should be imposed on imported goods or goods manufactured overseas by American companies. Yes, I would pay more for products if this meant that the current gap between the ultra rich and the poor were reduced and I wouldn’t have to worry about health care or putting my kid through college.
10. The only ones left out are the ones who truly don’t give a crap. The current situation has been seen in history before. It has generally led to a revolution. You’d think humanity would learn.
Just a thought.

"None"

The richest of the rich can sustain their fortune simply by having their fortune. They are, for the most part unaffected by taxes, because the bulk of their money does not reside in any one country. Most of that wealth will always be in countries that tax their wealth the least.

Normally what we call 'the rich' here in the US are not those fat cats, they are simply people who are on the higher end of INCOME scale. For instance, Obama is talking about taxing those who make over $250,000 a year.

The result of taxing these people is the same as taxing YOURSELF.

If you raise taxes on a landlord for instance, the result will not always be a pay decrease for the landlord, the landlord has the option of simply raising the rent. If you look at it from that perspective, who is really paying for the tax increase? Not the landlord, but the worker who rents from the landlord.

If a small business owner makes over $250,000 a year, and the government decides to tax that income, the most probable result is either pay decreases, price decreases, or layoffs for the workers of that business.

Either way, once again it is you the worker who actually pays for these tax increases.

It is my understanding that the economy is linked, much like the human body. You cannot tax those who have higher incomes more and expect it not to tinkle down to you in the form of unemployment, pay decreases, or an increasing price of goods.

What the government is doing at present is taking your anger towards 'the fatcats', and they are using that anger to expand government programs and head towards big government at your expense.

My personal opinion is that we need to revert back to a much smaller government that focuses on military, roads/transportation, police, firemen, and schools. A government like this could be financed through nothing more than a sales tax.