How do you justify taxing the rich?

How can you think we live in a democracy when the richest 500 families have a larger net worth than the poorest 150 million people?

You guys are starting from ther premise that people somehow deserve to make tens and hundreds and millions pof dollars while people who actually work hard and often at two or three jobs make $6 per hour. You also conveniently neglect the fact that the truly rich gain their wealth via capital gains -- which are not taxed at all until they are realized and then the tax rate is a measly 15%, significantly less than the tax rate applied to a middle class income.

In short, uou are the dupes of those who benefit from our system at the expense of the vast majority. You have the contented slave mentality, maybe your master will give you a smile.

Society is inherently "collectivist" so yes, societal health, however it's measured, has to be measured collectively. Being concerned with one's own health and with the health of one's society are not contradictory. They're actually quite compatible.

I sort of like being able to leave my house without having to worry excessively about being robbed, being mobbed by beggars, having to step around open sewers and dead dogs, etc.

You'll find that things like this are not all that uncommon in the underdeveloped world and that's often because there is excessive wealth concentrated among a very small number of people. The conditions in, say, Dickensonian Britain are another example. There is no amount of wealth you could offer me in exchange for living in those sorts of societies.

Please, go tell this to the "super-organism" of a poor-ass third world country with a small but wealthy elite governance and see how they respond.

No man or super-organism is an island.

Political Philosophy wrote:

Sorry, there's one I left out: the art of blanking out. Say one thing, refuse to identifiy the meaning of the statement you made, then blank out and hysterically evade the subject matter when someone points out the contradiction. Take shots at your opponent's education to distract onlookers from your obvious incompetence. If all else fails, look for a spelling or grammar mistake to shift the focus of the argument. Anything to weasle your way out of the debate.

Blanking out? You need to pay attention. Obviously I've already pointed that very thing out you need a serious upgrade in your intellect, but that should have been enough for you to maybe look at absolutely absurd statements that have nothing to do with philosophy, political or otherwise. Any educated person can look at nonsense like that and clearly see the person making those statements is not a member of their group.

You have made the following statements (paraphrasing here):

1) The sky is always yellow

2) Water tends to flow uphill

3) People multiply fruitfully when kept to themselves

4) Conservatives have functioning brains

5) All birds are good swimmers

6) Gravity doesn't matter

Now are basically identical statements to yours because a) they have nothing to do with philosophy, b) they are all false, and c) no rational person would ever consider them valid starting points for debate. You flunked your IQ test on the first point which was pretty humorous to watch but really, at the least the guy that posted "LIBERALS SUCK BIG DICKS" was at least honest enough to admit it was a lame-ass opinion instead of some high-falutin' "philosophy". If you really think you've posted something worthy of philosophical discussion but do you have some learning to do.

Go back to whackin' off to Ayn Rand little boy, leave the discussions to the adults.

To Political Philosophy: dude, i was in your boat once too. i realize that you just finished reading 'atlas shrugged' and you're really excited about the ideas, but get back to us in 10 years when you've lived a bit of life. i guarantee you won't see it the same way you clearly see it now.

peace.

HRE wrote:

Society is inherently "collectivist" so yes, societal health, however it's measured, has to be measured collectively. Being concerned with one's own health and with the health of one's society are not contradictory. They're actually quite compatible.

I sort of like being able to leave my house without having to worry excessively about being robbed, being mobbed by beggars, having to step around open sewers and dead dogs, etc.

You'll find that things like this are not all that uncommon in the underdeveloped world and that's often because there is excessive wealth concentrated among a very small number of people. The conditions in, say, Dickensonian Britain are another example. There is no amount of wealth you could offer me in exchange for living in those sorts of societies.

Yes, once again. This guy is SMART.

The extreme right-wing, libertarian position would have 1 percent of the population living LARGE, behind very high fences and with 24/7 private armies to protect them from the Mad Max World outside. How can ANYONE think that this scenario of extreme inequality is in any way a "good" thing--in reality, or even in theory?

There's an adolescent sort of aggressive ignorance to the idea that "whatever I have, I got it myself, and I deserve it, so everyone else--all the worthless, lazy folks--can just f*** off." That is not a realistic point of view, and it is not the recipe for a healthy, or desirable, society.

We know that no one "likes" taxes, but they are the price we pay for civilization. We can argue all we want about how federal money is spent, but there is a very clear need for more tax revenue NOW.

LetBeSocialists.com has overrun these threads.

MSNBC rules

Christians are fools

Spread the Wealth

Global Warming will destroy our planet

Obama is the Messiah, Chosen One, or the Annointed One

Hugo Chavez is da man!

Institute Cap & Trade

Institute a VAT

Expand welfare

Raise the minimum wage

Universal Healthcare

Devaluate the US Dollar, it's too high

Soak the rich, baby

Open our borders to all illegal immigrants

The FED is great

PP, why did you ignore the statement by Precious Roy, above the part which you quoted out of context?

"The rich should pay more in taxes because they are greater beneficiaries of government and users of government than the poor or regular wage earner."

This is actually the main argument for progressive taxation in the US, and I think PR described the theory pretty well. He did not ascribe any arbitrary values, he just described, in theory, the way a wealthier individual is a greater beneficiary of the liberties, infrastructure and protections provided by the US government. He probably overstates the education part, and understates defense, but he has described the concept well. In practice, not all wealthy individuals will benefit the same way, but that is the theory. How is that communism?

There's a lot wrong with your thoughts Flaggie but I'll pick just this one for now.

Flagpole wrote:

Wealthy people ought to pay a larger percentage of their income for public services than poor and middle class people.

Why? Do wealthy people use more services?

Of course not, they use less if anything because they can pay for services that are better and often do. Examples:

1) Private schools.

2) Gated communities with their own garbage pickup.

3) Gated communities with their own security services. ( police called less)

4) Wealthy don't use public pools and recreation areas they have their own pools and ttennis courts or belong to private clubs.

I could do this all day but the bottom line is they pay more than their fair share and get less than their fair share of public services. And you want to soak them even more. How can that be justified?

Leave the Gates and Buffet class out because once they get to that level something snaps in their head. I call it the guilt factor. Many (not all) got to where they are by being ruthless, stomping on all kinds of people on the way up and they feel guilty.

But once they realize they can never spend all that money, they decide they need to give back. Fine, they can give all they want and should not call for everyone else's wealth to be confiscated. Let each give back if and as they want.

Wrong. You ignored the two big ones: Social Services and the US Defense. The 4 you mentioned are of course a joke and drop in the bucket with regard to cost. However, you would probably agree that the last 80 years of US History would be a little different without Social Services and Defense.

No, you did just fine. I particularly go with #1. Wants shouldn't come before anyone's needs in this country. I particularly demonize the rich when they suck the lower classes basic needs away to afford more wants. Earned or not, it's a sick mentality. You get another boat while thousands don't get food, electric, or transportation.

The fact is when other people make mistakes early in life to the point the hole is too deep to ever rise out, do we let them drown? My answer is "No". With great power comes responsibility. The only honrable reason to get rich and powerful is to take care of your countryman, else don't run for president waving an American flag. It doesn't just stand for the rich.

Because 10% of one million is more than 10% of 40,000.

20-megaton-Duh.

That stupid former TV chattering skull Mona Charen

actually raised that question on TV. She was/is (if she's still alive) as stupid and annoying as Nina Tottenberg.

I justify it very easily. Many of the Wall Streeters took MASSIVE bonuses after the economy had a hole poked through it by the very same a8sholes.

I feel NO sympathy for the rich getting taxed, not for one nanosecond.

Malefactors of great wealth - TR

eat the rich

eat the rich

eat the rich

eat the rich

The New UncleB wrote:

How can you think we live in a democracy when the richest 500 families have a larger net worth than the poorest 150 million people?

You dolt. It is precisely because we DO live in a democracy that wealth has become concentrated. Democracy is a system of mob role that does not respect individual rights. Having little respect for economic freedom, and being utterly ignorant about the science of economics, the masse have unknowingly voted into existence a monetary system that allows the politically connected corporate elite to profit from inflation. That is the souce of wealth concentration. Retarded cattle like yourself will continue bemoaning the accumulation of wealth while at the same time supporting the political apparatus that causes it. You deserve the political outcomes you are getting.

HRE wrote:

Society is inherently "collectivist" so yes, societal health, however it's measured, has to be measured collectively. Being concerned with one's own health and with the health of one's society are not contradictory. They're actually quite compatible.

I sort of like being able to leave my house without having to worry excessively about being robbed, being mobbed by beggars, having to step around open sewers and dead dogs, etc.

There is no such thing as society. It's just a word that applies to the people living in given region. Society has no tangible attributes, i.e. no body, no mind, no opinions and no intentions. The individual members of a society are not bound together in any way, and most members neither know nor care about most of the other members. Get over your fantasies of human interdependence and societal orgies of brother-love.

There is no such thing as society. It's just a word that applies to the people living in given region. Society has no tangible attributes, i.e. no body, no mind, no opinions and no intentions. The individual members of a society are not bound together in any way, and most members neither know nor care about most of the other members. Get over your fantasies of human interdependence and societal orgies of brother-love.

Who is living in a fantasy?

You say: "The individual members of a society are not bound together in any way."

And yet you want so endearingly for us to understand you.

You say: "most members [of society] neither know nor care about most of the other members."

Yet here you are, arguing with strangers on a dark winter night, as if it really matters.

Political Philosophy wrote:Retarded cattle like yourself will continue bemoaning the accumulation of wealth while at the same time supporting the political apparatus that causes it. You deserve the political outcomes you are getting.

And what about you, enlightened one? Do you deserve these social outcomes as well? Do you deserve the life you have, surrounded by dolts and cattle? Full of anger and rage?

It was possibly already stated, and if so, my apologies. This is how I see it. Given the "rich" require the infrastructure of government, rule of law, military, etc. we can only assume the "rich" would consider funding this enterprise not only a privilege, but also a necessity.

We can explore arguments related to progressive taxation, flat tax, abolishing tax etc, but I would like to believe most folks who have had opportunities or hope have opportunities some day see the role of good government not in the pejorative, but rather as a blatant necessity.