-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Hitokage said:
Sure, the government borrowed from the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE held a lot of debt. Ok, fair enough, I guess I got confused (it was 3 am at the time) and thought we were talking about other countries. Fine though, I concede the point, though government funding through war bonds by itself wouldn't exactly be a way to help the economy recovery, would it? That's a sign the recovery is HAPPENING (most likely due to a build up of the manufacturing sector for the pre war demand). You're talking about shifting money in a closed system to the federal government to revive the economy, and that simply doesn't make sense.
Azih - Sure, but again, that does not suggest the money wasn't earned at all, just not by the individual who currently holds it. and who received it at the bequest, ultimately, of the person who did. Still doesn't bother me.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Pres. Clinton certainly deserves credit for the surpluses of the 90s, but it is simplistic to stop there. The first Pres. Bush's early 90s budget deal negotiated with the Democratic congress, which raised taxes and capped spending, set the foundation for the later surpluses of the Clinton years. And it did not last very long, but when the Republican majority took over after '94, they did enforce actual spending discipline for a time. Divided government probably offers the best environment for balanced budgets.
Azih said:
well, I agree that people of differing income levels can work just as hard, but I don't really see the relevance in all honesty. Saying that someone that makes 150k a year works as hard as 40k a year for example doesn't exactly help people that believe the person who makes 150k a year (likely because they're in a more specialized area as far as their skill set goes) doesn't at all make a case for taking away a bigger percentage of the person who makes 150k's income as some in this thread are suggesting. Typically higher wage earners have gotten more education, and HAVE put more effort into getting their skillset if not actually working harder on the job. And some people want to punish people for doing that.
Gaborn said:
:lol
Yes, Gaborn, we want to punish them for being successful. In fact, each night I lay awake, and shortly before falling asleep I shake my fist towards the ceiling and cry out, "How dare they be successful?!"
No, we want to take a larger share of money from them because those who make more money are better able to afford those costs - an explanation you have already gotten several times in this topic.
Mumei said:
Sure, and what I'm telling you is that's stealing. You don't have the right to take more from someone because they got a better education so they could earn more money. You can justify it as you want but that's ultimately punishing someone for bettering themselves and becoming more successful.
Generally people who make that argument are referring to earned rather than unearned income, so I don't think it's debunked yet.Azih said:
What you've said could be an argument against low capital gain taxes, though.
Edit:
Oh wait, interest and dividends... maybe I shouldn't post in this thread so early in the morning.
Mumei said:
"Better able to afford?"
If we're taxing blah at a percentage, those with the larger number value attached to blah will pay more by virtue of the fact that we're dealing with a percentage. That's equitable.
Your methodology is, by virtue of having more blah, the percentage needs to be higher on you. Simply having more means you owe not just your fair share, but a greater share than anyone else.
Cyan said:
OR an argument against high income taxes. >
JayDubya said:"Better able to afford?"
If we're taxing blah at a percentage, those with the larger number value attached to blah will pay more by virtue of the fact that we're dealing with a percentage. That's equitable.
Your methodology is, by virtue of having more blah, the percentage needs to be higher on you. Simply having more means you owe not just your fair share, but a greater share than anyone else.
OR an argument against high income taxes. >
Utility theory; poorer man will use a greater percentage of his income to meet his basic needs. While the richer man has a greater percentage of income available to spend on luxuries.
Given that needs >>> luxuries in utility terms, the rich are therefore more able to afford higher taxes, in order to give the plebs a more even ground on which to launch into their own successes.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree with me, so I don't know why you want to protect their wealth so much.
That said, what really needs reassessment is capital gains. 15% flat rate? really? Who thought of that one? Some rich guy probably.
Zaptruder said:
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are welcome to do what they want with their money, including writing a ginormous check to the U.S. Treasury, at their leisure.
Were they do to so, however, that would or should have no bearing on what everyone else has to do.
Zaptruder said:
15% and flat? Seems like a good place to move the income tax to (see, I'm concerned about the inequity between income and capital gains, too). 0% is better, but hey.
Zaptruder said:
Yes. Because the richer man earns more. So? That doesn't give you the right to take it from the richer man. Look, for example, let's say someone steals a TV from Bill Gates home. Then let's say someone steals the SAME TV from someone who only makes 50k a year (setting aside the question of why Gates would have what is probably a relatively small TV). You can argue the morality of it, but in both cases you'd by statute be up for the same punishment, right? Not a greater punishment because the person who only makes 50k is less able to afford another one should it be damaged and the thief unable to pay to replace it? If someone earns money and you believe their income should be taxed it should be taxed at the same percentage. You're still arguing people should be punished for earning more.
Being able to afford something doesn't give a parasitic Robin Hood government the right to it. Bill Gates can afford to pay every single person's income tax next year by himself. That doesn't mean he should be compelled to do so.
No, they think they should be taxed at the same PERCENTAGE of income as everyone else, in other words, close loopholes like investments.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Since the Supreme Court's decision on Right v. Wrong in 1920 declared that taxes are punishment and that to quote Justice James Clark McReynolds, "Taxation following a linear equation is inherently fair; quadratics have no place in modern society."... well, I'd say Gaborn and JayDubya have this one wrapped up.
maynerd said:
I read just today on the interweb of a young man named maynerd, who said that higher tax rates for the wealthy made him not want to work as hard as he could to achieve the American Dream(tm). My friends, this is not the America we want to leave for our children, and our children's friends.
I really shouldn't start arguments with people as wordy as you when I don't have the day free to respond, but this is just silly to me.Gaborn said:
A punishment implies that someone has done something wrong, and is being discouraged from doing so. To think that a high tax rate on the richer people in our society is actually discouraging people from becoming rich and successful is silly. As if kids are blowing off their homework and putting down books because they may one day have a higher tax rate than their parents.
God, from reading some of these posts you'd think these unbelievably rich people were victims of the fucking crusades. They've benefitted more than others from the system we have in our country. As a result, they have more than others, and are required to give more of that than others in order to keep that system running smoothly. It's not really that hard to justify.
anybody else have an idea what Obama's current strategy is besides lket McCain run him into the ground for the next two weeks? I mean....media is against him...fucking digg and reddit are even pissed off about his telecom immunity thing.
He hasn't seen anything, meanwhile McCain is throwing out environmental plans....
Is Obama just waiting until later to reveal his policies or something?
He hasn't seen anything, meanwhile McCain is throwing out environmental plans....
Is Obama just waiting until later to reveal his policies or something?
JayDubya said:
Curious, but would it be possible to have a flat tax rate and maintain something similar to our current cornucopia of social welfare programs, and do so without unfairly burdening those who such programs are meant to help? If it were, I wouldn't have a problem with instituting that.
maynerd said:
I think you've got a really screwed up sense of what "rich" is and what "poor" is in this country. Most of us aren't at the extremes you're using, and most of the poorest of the poor who live paycheck to paycheck don't actually pay a whole heck of a lot in taxes in the first place, if any. That's aside, of course, from the fact that those who do live paycheck to paycheck are... spending those paychecks on foods.
Mumei - Probably not, but if you take out most of our foreign military bases and tighten our spending in other areas we could probably just about take care of the current generation and allow future generations to opt out. Well, that and bring social security in in line with FDR's original intent and tie it to life expectancy (for example, when it was first enacted life expectancy was 65. we were never intended to have the program forever, but it WAS intended to be only for the last few years of life, not 20-30 years of declining activity).
how is McCain running Obama into the ground? McCain's having enough trouble keeping his own platform coherent to dent Obama's (SCARY SOCIALIST) campaign.esbern said:
mayNERD: yeah, man - you have a screwed up way of looking at things. how dare you bring up equity to a libertarian! especially one as prescient as Gaborn.
SouthernDragon
Member
Yay, we finally addressed the issue of the 36% tax on earned income vs 15% unearned income!
Although, I gotta say, the wording you fellows are setting up here is weird. Taxation is stealing? Taxation is the payment we make to a government for setting up a civilized society, creating a system under which we can live and hopefully prosper, and for representation in government. If we aren't getting those things, then taxation is stealing. Otherwise, I don't see how it is.
Well, I can try. The wealthy person (should we say, above 2.8 million?) has either worked really hard all his life, saved up some cash, and is enjoying it in old age (less and less likely) or worked hard, possibly got a college education, set up an intelligent business plan or made some smart investments and is now enjoying the fruits of their labors, physical and/or intellectual.
All this wealth was earned by themselves, and themselves alone. The government did not help them out, no assistance necessary, this hypothetical person pulled themselves up and out (if they were in the gutter to begin with) and achieved wealth on their own. Thus, they owe little to the government, if anything, and taxation by the government on their money, earned or capital gains, is inherently stealing, since this person earned it, and not the government.
Am I correct? Is this the viewpoint posters like Gaborn and avatar99 hold?
Although, I gotta say, the wording you fellows are setting up here is weird. Taxation is stealing? Taxation is the payment we make to a government for setting up a civilized society, creating a system under which we can live and hopefully prosper, and for representation in government. If we aren't getting those things, then taxation is stealing. Otherwise, I don't see how it is.
Well, I can try. The wealthy person (should we say, above 2.8 million?) has either worked really hard all his life, saved up some cash, and is enjoying it in old age (less and less likely) or worked hard, possibly got a college education, set up an intelligent business plan or made some smart investments and is now enjoying the fruits of their labors, physical and/or intellectual.
All this wealth was earned by themselves, and themselves alone. The government did not help them out, no assistance necessary, this hypothetical person pulled themselves up and out (if they were in the gutter to begin with) and achieved wealth on their own. Thus, they owe little to the government, if anything, and taxation by the government on their money, earned or capital gains, is inherently stealing, since this person earned it, and not the government.
Am I correct? Is this the viewpoint posters like Gaborn and avatar99 hold?
Fine, the low amount of trust fund babies in our country destroys the idea that the majority of people who are wealthy work.Azih said:
That still doesn't mean that focusing the tax system on them is a smart thing to do.
To an extent yes. A lot of proponents don't care that they are being taxed, they care about how that money is ultimately used.
Being taxed for a road, for public health, to run the courts, fine. Being taxed to fight wars against people who haven't harmed you. To give aid to people even though you think that isn't the best solution, etc etc... is a problem for a lot of people.
FlightOfHeaven said:
Well, first, the main reason libertarians view taxation as theft is we differentiate between taxes (a fee charged for services that may or may not have benefited the individual) and user fees (something like the gas tax for example or a sales tax, while not preferable are reasonable because they're a tax on a good or a service provided directly). When you do something like tax income or property you're ASSUMING the government is entitled to it simply because they're the government.
As for the latter description, that's much closer to my view, the government's claim is based on an assumption that you required their services whether you did or did not.A
Also, what Avatar said. The way money is used by the federal government beyond it's basic mandate is horrific.
Maynerd - It doesn't though really. I mean, sure, a larger percentage of their income is used on food and so forth, so taxing them at the same rate is going to affect that, I understand that, but then the problem is the lower income. You could make your same argument with someone earning 95000 and 99000 a year, but it wouldn't make sense, would it?
SouthernDragon
Member
Gaborn said:
Actually, from what I understand, and I may be wrong here, feel free to correct me, is that the middle class in the United States has declined while the economic divisions between the rich and the poor have increased.
FlightOfHeaven said:
Not really, in fact the median income in the country has increased significantly (median is more useful than mean because there will always be more outliers at the low end than the high end just because of the nature of the system, yet this shows 50% above and below) in the last 40 years. At the same time, the wealthiest americans HAVE gained money faster, and the poorest quintile have also increased their wealth, though by a lesser amount.
Gaborn said:
I'm not sure I follow you. It's not just a problem, it's a reality. That person makes less money so they have less money for everything including necessities to live.
In your example of 95k to 99k those people should probably be taxed at nearly the same rate. But when we are talking about someone who's making 20k and someone who's making 200k. I think it's fair to say that the person making 200k can afford a higher tax rate.
Frank the Great
Banned
Rich and poor people are fundamentally opposed and their interests lie in direct opposition to one another.
If you side with the rich, you want them to have lower taxes and for there to be no welfare programs.
If you side with the poor, you want the rich to pay higher taxes to provide social welfare and equal opportunity to the poor.
Simple as that. Growing up poor, I side with the poor people.
Just because some people manage to strike it big coming from a poor economic background does not mean everyone has that same opportunity.
The free market is a dream for the bourgeois that enables them to maintain their own status and power. They can oppress lower classes "legitimately"-without the interfering hand of the government. And their biggest victory of all is convincing so many of the lower classes that they will benefit from bourgeois tax cuts.
Throughout history, people in power have gotten away with paying little taxes compared to the peasants and workers. In our "modern" era, we are witnessing the same thing happen, only instead of aristocrats forcing their peasants to pay taxes for them, speak tax breaks are given to those who hold power in the name of benefiting all. We need to crush this system, and support the backbone of democracy - the poor, working, and lower classes, by providing tax benefits to THEM, instead of the rich. The rich can afford to be taxed, but the poor suffer from it.
The vast majority of people in this country do not make enough money to be considered rich, or even middle class. We live in a democracy, the framework is in place for a tax revolution which benefits the poor to truly take place. All that needs to be done is to dispel the myth that benefiting the rich helps everyone, and to awaken the lower classes to the fact that the bourgeois use and abuse them, and that they can change it with their vote.
If you side with the rich, you want them to have lower taxes and for there to be no welfare programs.
If you side with the poor, you want the rich to pay higher taxes to provide social welfare and equal opportunity to the poor.
Simple as that. Growing up poor, I side with the poor people.
Just because some people manage to strike it big coming from a poor economic background does not mean everyone has that same opportunity.
The free market is a dream for the bourgeois that enables them to maintain their own status and power. They can oppress lower classes "legitimately"-without the interfering hand of the government. And their biggest victory of all is convincing so many of the lower classes that they will benefit from bourgeois tax cuts.
Throughout history, people in power have gotten away with paying little taxes compared to the peasants and workers. In our "modern" era, we are witnessing the same thing happen, only instead of aristocrats forcing their peasants to pay taxes for them, speak tax breaks are given to those who hold power in the name of benefiting all. We need to crush this system, and support the backbone of democracy - the poor, working, and lower classes, by providing tax benefits to THEM, instead of the rich. The rich can afford to be taxed, but the poor suffer from it.
The vast majority of people in this country do not make enough money to be considered rich, or even middle class. We live in a democracy, the framework is in place for a tax revolution which benefits the poor to truly take place. All that needs to be done is to dispel the myth that benefiting the rich helps everyone, and to awaken the lower classes to the fact that the bourgeois use and abuse them, and that they can change it with their vote.
/marx
Frank the Great
Banned
I actually think that the income tax should be progressive, but that the rates should be lowered across the board.
The fair tax system should be used to replace lost revenue - a federal sales tax on every non essential item (only like 1 or 2 percent.) This is a naturally progressive system; rich people buy more shit, and more expensive shit, so they would pay more taxes. It also adjusts the tax system to reflect our consumer based economy, instead of taxing productive work as much.
The fair tax system should be used to replace lost revenue - a federal sales tax on every non essential item (only like 1 or 2 percent.) This is a naturally progressive system; rich people buy more shit, and more expensive shit, so they would pay more taxes. It also adjusts the tax system to reflect our consumer based economy, instead of taxing productive work as much.
maynerd said:
Most people at 20k income don't really pay a whole lot in taxes in any case, but the problem is that you don't realize your definition of "necessities" changes drastically when you only earn 20k a year. I don't see a problem with a person at a lower income being disproportionately affected by a tax. The same hold true when they make any purchase in a store, sales tax is fundamentally regressive, it's just the nature of the beast.
The question should be, quality of life and how much time is compared to wage. Americans live longer, make more money, work less than we did 50 years ago and generally ( I don't have the data) live better than any other time in our history.FlightOfHeaven said:
The reason why the middle class is shrinking is becuase of private debt, and bad management of money. If you look at the shrinking middle class, they have SUV's and motorboats. Iphones and HD tv's. We overeat ourselves and overspend
Mumei said:
Of course not. Hence my support for such a taxation scheme.
The welfare / warfare state is the pair of cement shoes around our ankles, and the two party system amounts to voting between more welfare, or more warfare, and few voices in the room talking about actually managing to pay for any of it.
SouthernDragon
Member
I wouldn't say that they are trying to focus the system on them. They are just trying to make things slightly more balanced. A wage earner gives 36%. A capital income earner gives 15%, and that's not counting various methods of legally lowering or avoiding taxation. That's a bit low, numerically. I'd say raising it to 20% or 25% would be re-balancing things.avatar299 said:
avatar299 said:
I can agree with this sentiment. Too bad there isn't a system where you can opt in or out of these programs, although that could get tricky with things like universal healthcare and the like.
Gaborn said:
Oh. Thanks for clarifying. So basic mandates (that justify taxation) would be things like public transportation, police force, (in my view!) healthcare, and the like? Things that do not justify taxation would be umm, things not used by the taxee that the government creates, espouses, or employs.
No, wait, it'd be things that the government does not directly control or influence that the taxee has done. Or a mixture of the two? I'm just trying to get what you're coming from.
So, income taxes and capital gains taxes would be gone, since they are based on things created and worked for by the user, but things like sales taxes and gas taxes would stay because... I don't see how the government is involved in the transfer of goods from a company to a person. Perhaps I'm just thick. : (
Gaborn said:
The government is inefficient, sure. But I am inherently wary of all out capitalism, even if I am a big proponent of all the good it brings to the table. Capitalism is out for a profit, not the overall good of a country or a people, which means if a company can increase profits at the expense of a people and can perpetuate that abuse without any drawbacks, then it will.
As to your response to maynerd, if I may interject in that conversation, I believe that the problem manifests itself precisely when the differences in wage earning is great. The difference between two people earning 95000 and 99000 may not be much, in terms of taxation, because their salaries allow for them to afford basic necessities (in the U.S. basic necessities are a car, a house, and the ability to provide for yourself and your family). The taxation only cuts into their ability to engage in luxurious spending.
Where as with someone that earns, say, 36000 a year, that 36000 might just barely cover living expenses, with few if any chances for luxury. Someone earning 20000 might not even have enough for living expenses, thus working two jobs to make ends meet. So a flat tax might affect someone earning a lower wage because it'll directly cut into the base amount they need to live.
In this scenario, I must include the following; I have taken into account that the people earning 95000 and 99000 probably live in better neighborhoods than those earning 36000 and 20000, and thus end up paying more for living expenses. Also, the fact of the matter that minimum wages, or lower wages, have not kept pace with costs of living.
If I'm wrong, please point it out! Thanks!
Father_Brain
Banned
Mumei said:
I believe Darwin had a name for it. Survival something-or-other.
Frank the Great
Banned
My friend's dad got shot in the face, blinding him and partially paralyzing him permanently, when she was very young. If it weren't for government help, she would have been in the streets and he would probably be a homeless bum somewhere right not.
I agree with Jaydub, we need to get rid of all evil government welfare programs.
I agree with Jaydub, we need to get rid of all evil government welfare programs.
Frank the Great
Banned
Father_Brain said:
I find it amazing that some people are vehemently trying to bring society back to the chaotic, evil state of nature that Hobbes wrote about.
We should be trying to curb our human vices, not enhance and let our greed and selfishness rule unabated.
- Status