The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Circumventing Democracy
1
 

JLone
Level 3

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2169

http://www.politicususa.com/...ting-democracy/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

The so called conservatives believe we want Tyranny . Personally it is why I loath Republicans

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Interesting article, but I don't know enough about Michigan politics to offer any good comments.

However .... the website begins with:

PoliticusUSA: Real Liberal Politics.

When a website begins with that, you need to realize that you are dealing with people who have their minds made up. I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 258

pittbulll wrote:
The so called conservatives believe we want Tyranny . Personally it is why I loath Republicans



I don't know if you would be interested in a book that describes the American Right. Its by Richard Hofstadter entitled The paranoid style in American politics, and other essays.
You might like it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

florelius
Level

Join date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3134

njrusmc wrote:
I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


Oh the horror... :O

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 258

njrusmc wrote:
Interesting article, but I don't know enough about Michigan politics to offer any good comments.

However .... the website begins with:

PoliticusUSA: Real Liberal Politics.

When a website begins with that, you need to realize that you are dealing with people who have their minds made up. I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


THe article is saying that the republicans in Michigan, are subverting democracy by claiming a right to pass a law immediately when they don't have enough votes for that conclusion.

what do you mean " maintaining wealth redistribution? The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

silee wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
The so called conservatives believe we want Tyranny . Personally it is why I loath Republicans



I don't know if you would be interested in a book that describes the American Right. Its by Richard Hofstadter entitled The paranoid style in American politics, and other essays.
You might like it.


At present my reading has to be audio book.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

silee wrote:
njrusmc wrote:
Interesting article, but I don't know enough about Michigan politics to offer any good comments.

However .... the website begins with:

PoliticusUSA: Real Liberal Politics.

When a website begins with that, you need to realize that you are dealing with people who have their minds made up. I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


THe article is saying that the republicans in Michigan, are subverting democracy by claiming a right to pass a law immediately when they don't have enough votes for that conclusion.

what do you mean " maintaining wealth redistribution? The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.



Not only were they voting immediate action of the laqw they were doing it with not enough votes . At least that is the way I understood the video

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

Arizona has a similar problem . We have a group of elderly in Sun City AZ that vote in the high 90% and they control our politics . these problems stem from people not voting .

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7586

silee wrote:
The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.


Why are you lying?

'(A) 2007 Treasury Department study (shows) nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.

problem with the census data is they don't include the noncash income received by the lowest-income households. Each year, the poor get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and health care. None of these transfer payments, a lot of it paid for by the 1%, is counted as income by the Census Bureau.

One report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest-income group would rise roughly 50% if such welfare were considered.

Likewise, the share of total income earned by the top income quintile would drop about 7% if taxes paid to fund welfare were considered.

Census doesn't take into account the equalizing effects of taxes. Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.

Federal Reserve and other data - which include all financial and nonfinancial assets, including bank accounts, investments, houses and cars - give a more complete picture of the gap. When you count all wealth, not just income, inequality has not gotten worse.

The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.' - Investors Busting the 1% Myth

'A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that when measuring household taxes(income taxes and employee Social Security contributions), the United States "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population," placing a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialised nations do. The lastest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States paid 39 percent of federal income taxes while earning 18 percent of pretax income and the top 5 percent of income earners paid 61 percent of federal income taxes whole earning 31 percent of pretax income. Indeed, the top 40 percent of income earners paid 99.4 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of income earners paid no federal income tax and received 3.8 percent from the tax system. And the middle 20 percent of income earners pay only 4.4 percent of federal income taxes.' - Scott A. Hodge

'Inasmuch as economic equality is unachievable, even in the most repressive socialist states, it serves the Statist's purpose to contrive a class system in which individuals are grouped by officially sanctioned, arbitrary economic categories. In this way the Statist stirs up class envy. The free market is, therefore, said to be incapable of serving the public interest, for it produces unjust results, thereby requiring further government intervention. The Statist also attempts to manipulate the intensity of the "class struggle" by routinely redefining terms and categories of wealth - who qualifies as the detested "rich," the righteous "middle class," and the disenfranchised "poor."

Who populates th(e) "middle class"? Is it the twenty-five-year-old female paralegal who graduated from college, works at a large law firm, earns $85,000 a year, is unmarried and without children, lives in an apartment in Manhatten, and rarely attends church in the same "middle class" as the fifty-seven-year-old male auto mechanic who did not graduate from high school, works at Pep Boys, earns $55,000 a year, lives in a row home in northeast Philadelphia, is married with four children, and attends church every Sunday?' - Mark Levin

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

SexMachine wrote:
silee wrote:
The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.


Why are you lying?

'(A) 2007 Treasury Department study (shows) nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.

problem with the census data is they don't include the noncash income received by the lowest-income households. Each year, the poor get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and health care. None of these transfer payments, a lot of it paid for by the 1%, is counted as income by the Census Bureau.

One report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest-income group would rise roughly 50% if such welfare were considered.

Likewise, the share of total income earned by the top income quintile would drop about 7% if taxes paid to fund welfare were considered.

Census doesn't take into account the equalizing effects of taxes. Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.

Federal Reserve and other data - which include all financial and nonfinancial assets, including bank accounts, investments, houses and cars - give a more complete picture of the gap. When you count all wealth, not just income, inequality has not gotten worse.

The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.' - Investors Busting the 1% Myth

'A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that when measuring household taxes(income taxes and employee Social Security contributions), the United States "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population," placing a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialised nations do. The lastest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States paid 39 percent of federal income taxes while earning 18 percent of pretax income and the top 5 percent of income earners paid 61 percent of federal income taxes whole earning 31 percent of pretax income. Indeed, the top 40 percent of income earners paid 99.4 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of income earners paid no federal income tax and received 3.8 percent from the tax system. And the middle 20 percent of income earners pay only 4.4 percent of federal income taxes.' - Scott A. Hodge

'Inasmuch as economic equality is unachievable, even in the most repressive socialist states, it serves the Statist's purpose to contrive a class system in which individuals are grouped by officially sanctioned, arbitrary economic categories. In this way the Statist stirs up class envy. The free market is, therefore, said to be incapable of serving the public interest, for it produces unjust results, thereby requiring further government intervention. The Statist also attempts to manipulate the intensity of the "class struggle" by routinely redefining terms and categories of wealth - who qualifies as the detested "rich," the righteous "middle class," and the disenfranchised "poor."

Who populates th(e) "middle class"? Is it the twenty-five-year-old female paralegal who graduated from college, works at a large law firm, earns $85,000 a year, is unmarried and without children, lives in an apartment in Manhatten, and rarely attends church in the same "middle class" as the fifty-seven-year-old male auto mechanic who did not graduate from high school, works at Pep Boys, earns $55,000 a year, lives in a row home in northeast Philadelphia, is married with four children, and attends church every Sunday?' - Mark Levin



What ? is that acut and paste rant ?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7586

pittbulll wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
silee wrote:
The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.


Why are you lying?

'(A) 2007 Treasury Department study (shows) nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.

problem with the census data is they don't include the noncash income received by the lowest-income households. Each year, the poor get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and health care. None of these transfer payments, a lot of it paid for by the 1%, is counted as income by the Census Bureau.

One report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest-income group would rise roughly 50% if such welfare were considered.

Likewise, the share of total income earned by the top income quintile would drop about 7% if taxes paid to fund welfare were considered.

Census doesn't take into account the equalizing effects of taxes. Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.

Federal Reserve and other data - which include all financial and nonfinancial assets, including bank accounts, investments, houses and cars - give a more complete picture of the gap. When you count all wealth, not just income, inequality has not gotten worse.

The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.' - Investors Busting the 1% Myth

'A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that when measuring household taxes(income taxes and employee Social Security contributions), the United States "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population," placing a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialised nations do. The lastest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States paid 39 percent of federal income taxes while earning 18 percent of pretax income and the top 5 percent of income earners paid 61 percent of federal income taxes whole earning 31 percent of pretax income. Indeed, the top 40 percent of income earners paid 99.4 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of income earners paid no federal income tax and received 3.8 percent from the tax system. And the middle 20 percent of income earners pay only 4.4 percent of federal income taxes.' - Scott A. Hodge

'Inasmuch as economic equality is unachievable, even in the most repressive socialist states, it serves the Statist's purpose to contrive a class system in which individuals are grouped by officially sanctioned, arbitrary economic categories. In this way the Statist stirs up class envy. The free market is, therefore, said to be incapable of serving the public interest, for it produces unjust results, thereby requiring further government intervention. The Statist also attempts to manipulate the intensity of the "class struggle" by routinely redefining terms and categories of wealth - who qualifies as the detested "rich," the righteous "middle class," and the disenfranchised "poor."

Who populates th(e) "middle class"? Is it the twenty-five-year-old female paralegal who graduated from college, works at a large law firm, earns $85,000 a year, is unmarried and without children, lives in an apartment in Manhatten, and rarely attends church in the same "middle class" as the fifty-seven-year-old male auto mechanic who did not graduate from high school, works at Pep Boys, earns $55,000 a year, lives in a row home in northeast Philadelphia, is married with four children, and attends church every Sunday?' - Mark Levin



What ? is that acut and paste rant ?


It's one question, followed by two quotes that articulate the OWS/1%er class warfare crap for what it is. EDIT - sorry, three quotes.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 258

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution. [/quote]

Why are you lying?

Lying? To lie is to knowingly affirm, a falsehood or to not say what ones knows to be the case in a particular context. I am not lying. . You actually think that the 1% income and wealth is declining?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Anyone who has a job and pays income tax has their wealth redistributed. My town/state pays $400 / week for unemployment, so people stay on it as long as possible. Some have even declined job offers with my company because they would "rather stay on unemployment compensation".

Mind you, that's $400 a week after taxes, so over 20k a year for doing NO WORK. I work 40-50 hours a week with a college degree in a highly specialized job .... and bring home under $700 a week after taxes. So let's not discuss wealth redistribution further because it is, in fact, the reality of the nanny state.

But on topic, I would like to see a more objective article from another website that doesn't boldly claim "Real Liberal Politics" at the top. I can't watch Fox News/Shawn Hannity or any of those fools on either extreme wing. This is no different. The article even says that "poor people get tens of billions of dollars ... ", which was once my money, and probably yours too.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

"Indeed, the top 40 percent of income earners paid 99.4 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of income earners paid no federal income tax and received 3.8 percent from the tax system."

So basically, under half of Americans make up over 99% of the one of the federal governments biggest incomes. Imagine if you had a salaried job that paid a little bit above average, putting you around the 40% mark. You earned this in the past decade of hard work and self discipline. How would you feel?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7586

silee wrote:

Lying? To lie is to knowingly affirm, a falsehood or to not say what ones knows to be the case in a particular context. I am not lying.


True. Maybe I was hasty. So, read the quotes. The 1%er vs. 99%er myth is nonsense. You no longer have an excuse to perpetuate such nonsense.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24875

florelius wrote:
njrusmc wrote:
I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


Oh the horror... :O


Indeed.

You will be around 40 when it will all finally have broken down, shafting the "poor" in the process of course.

Would that change your mind or will it be just another example of "it could have worked if only the right people had been in power" ?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24875

silee wrote:
njrusmc wrote:
Interesting article, but I don't know enough about Michigan politics to offer any good comments.

However .... the website begins with:

PoliticusUSA: Real Liberal Politics.

When a website begins with that, you need to realize that you are dealing with people who have their minds made up. I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


THe article is saying that the republicans in Michigan, are subverting democracy by claiming a right to pass a law immediately when they don't have enough votes for that conclusion.

what do you mean " maintaining wealth redistribution? The only wealth redistribution is upwards to the 1% but other than that there is no such thing as wealth redistribution.


Yeah well, that is the system you presumably want, why complain when it turns out different than you expected?

You give government the power to "redistribute wealth" and well connected people are going to get most of it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24875

njrusmc wrote:
"Indeed, the top 40 percent of income earners paid 99.4 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of income earners paid no federal income tax and received 3.8 percent from the tax system."

So basically, under half of Americans make up over 99% of the one of the federal governments biggest incomes. Imagine if you had a salaried job that paid a little bit above average, putting you around the 40% mark. You earned this in the past decade of hard work and self discipline. How would you feel?


In a way he is right.

If you measure what actually gets doled out to the people already a large part is missing, presumably to pay an army of bureaucrats.

If you look at the actual utility of those "benefits", meaning, what would the poor have paid for those services had they simply gotten a check it looks even worse.

The only wealth transfer that is really taking place is from the productive class to government and its employees and of course political cronies.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

florelius
Level

Join date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3134

orion wrote:
florelius wrote:
njrusmc wrote:
I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


Oh the horror... :O


Indeed.

You will be around 40 when it will all finally have broken down, shafting the "poor" in the process of course.

Would that change your mind or will it be just another example of "it could have worked if only the right people had been in power" ?


hm a couple of things.

1. How do you know how things are going to be when I am fourty( 2026 ), are you a prophet now?

2. When we are talking about wealth redistribution, we are talking about a state that taxes people and uses that tax money as it sees fit right? ( asking to see if we are on the same page )

3. And third how is this system of "redistribution of wealth/taxation" going to cause the entire system to crash? Its allready been around for centurys( taxation ) and altough not a perfect system( does that even exist ) I cant see how it is going to crash. I can see however that in a system with a market-economy it has been necessary to establish a welfare state to ensure that the entire population has a minimum of a acceptable living standard. Please explain this further and some factual evidence to why to would be great if you where able to dig some up.

4. When you say "it could have worked if the right people did it" I guess you are refering to some conversion about socialism we had YEARS ago on this forum. Well to that I can respond that the only right group of people would be the people themself and not some small group of party-elite, bureacrats, junta etc. Socialism when it comes down to it is an system that can only work properly if the people themself set it up( trough revolution, reform, general strike etc ) and runs it. Any form of socialism where some form of "elite" are supposed to run it on behalf of the people is when it goes wrong( as in soviet russia as an example ) or they dont reach it( as the socialdemocratic party elite in scandinavia ).

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24875

florelius wrote:
orion wrote:
florelius wrote:
njrusmc wrote:
I've read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the "social safety net".


Oh the horror... :O


Indeed.

You will be around 40 when it will all finally have broken down, shafting the "poor" in the process of course.

Would that change your mind or will it be just another example of "it could have worked if only the right people had been in power" ?


hm a couple of things.

1. How do you know how things are going to be when I am fourty( 2026 ), are you a prophet now?

2. When we are talking about wealth redistribution, we are talking about a state that taxes people and uses that tax money as it sees fit right? ( asking to see if we are on the same page )

3. And third how is this system of "redistribution of wealth/taxation" going to cause the entire system to crash? Its allready been around for centurys( taxation ) and altough not a perfect system( does that even exist ) I cant see how it is going to crash. I can see however that in a system with a market-economy it has been necessary to establish a welfare state to ensure that the entire population has a minimum of a acceptable living standard. Please explain this further and some factual evidence to why to would be great if you where able to dig some up.

4. When you say "it could have worked if the right people did it" I guess you are refering to some conversion about socialism we had YEARS ago on this forum. Well to that I can respond that the only right group of people would be the people themself and not some small group of party-elite, bureacrats, junta etc. Socialism when it comes down to it is an system that can only work properly if the people themself set it up( trough revolution, reform, general strike etc ) and runs it. Any form of socialism where some form of "elite" are supposed to run it on behalf of the people is when it goes wrong( as in soviet russia as an example ) or they dont reach it( as the socialdemocratic party elite in scandinavia ).



1. I have a calculator and I am not afraid to use it.

2. Yup.

3. We never had a system where you would be punished for economic success and rewarded for economic failure.

We never had a system that attacked its very foundations, directly by destroying the social capital a free market built, by replacing all institutions of a free society that dealt with those problems thereby removing the know how from the public sphere and last but not least by even destroying the very demographic foundation it stands on.

4. I see, so it does not work. I am glad we agree.


Finally, that does not answer my question, when it will have collapsed, will that be enough or will you be one of the ones calling for the next round?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

florelius
Level

Join date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3134

orion wrote:

1. I have a calculator and I am not afraid to use it.


Explain how this makes you able to predict the future, not shure if I get what you are pointing at. Debt, costs?



3. We never had a system where you would be punished for economic success and rewarded for economic failure.


If you are talking about progressive taxation, then nobody are punished or rewarded, but everybody pays a tax rate that are in correlation to their income.


We never had a system that attacked its very foundations, directly by destroying the social capital a free market built, by replacing all institutions of a free society that dealt with those problems thereby removing the know how from the public sphere and last but not least by even destroying the very demographic foundation it stands on.


Really? are we talking about the "liberal system" that is the pre-dominat in the west. How is it attacking its own foundation and how is it destroying the social capital( what do you mean with social-capital btw ) and what are this civil society institutions you talk about, the family?, the curch?, labour unions?( just had to ), guilds? and in the end what do you mean with its demographic foundation? ( Hope you arent going all sexmachine on me with this one )


4. I see, so it does not work. I am glad we agree.


I dont know if it work or doesnt, but I bet it has as good of a chance as your libertarian paradis ;)


Finally, that does not answer my question, when it will have collapsed, will that be enough or will you be one of the ones calling for the next round?


First of all I am not a liberal, so you cant pin the failures of the "liberal system on me, but if it fails( and if ) then the smartest thing to do would be to analyse without bias why it failed. It must offcourse fail before we can know offcourse.


  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Taxation has been around since the beginning of civilization and will remain until the end. The presence of absense of taxation was never the issue; please don't create a strawman here.

Progressive taxation is the downfall of society. To this day, I cannot fathom why those who make more money as a result of their own successes, innovations, hard work, and self-betterment must pay comparatively more money to the government ... presumably so it can be shelled out to those in society who contribute the absolute least. You can't say that the rich aren't punished and the poor aren't rewarded in this instance. We are taught as children that heroes like Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor ... as if, in reality, those rich individuals never earned it and don't deserve to keep their earnings.

How many millionaires do you know who just woke up one day and were millionaires? Yes, I realize some people are born into it, but that's a weak anecdotal argument for progressive taxation. A guy at my job makes under 100K a year but between his farm, his wife's manufacturing company, and his property values, his family's net work is 7.8M. After 30 years of hard work (his wife too), why should be pay tens of thousands in taxes each year? He paid almost his entire salary, from his full-time job, in income taxes last fiscal year.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan was flawed but it was just at the core.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

njrusmc wrote:
Taxation has been around since the beginning of civilization and will remain until the end. The presence of absense of taxation was never the issue; please don't create a strawman here.

Progressive taxation is the downfall of society. To this day, I cannot fathom why those who make more money as a result of their own successes, innovations, hard work, and self-betterment must pay comparatively more money to the government ... presumably so it can be shelled out to those in society who contribute the absolute least. You can't say that the rich aren't punished and the poor aren't rewarded in this instance. We are taught as children that heroes like Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor ... as if, in reality, those rich individuals never earned it and don't deserve to keep their earnings.

How many millionaires do you know who just woke up one day and were millionaires? Yes, I realize some people are born into it, but that's a weak anecdotal argument for progressive taxation. A guy at my job makes under 100K a year but between his farm, his wife's manufacturing company, and his property values, his family's net work is 7.8M. After 30 years of hard work (his wife too), why should be pay tens of thousands in taxes each year? He paid almost his entire salary, from his full-time job, in income taxes last fiscal year.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan was flawed but it was just at the core.



Great post!

The top 1% income earners (350-k and up) pay 37% of all taxes.

The top 10% (112-k) pay 70% of all taxes.

Therefore, I have to agree with President Obama on one thing. The rich are not paying their fair share - They are paying far more!


http://www.ntu.org/...come-taxes.html

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
1