The rich should pay more in taxes, just not in the form of a progressive income tax. They should pay in the form of tarriffs or user fees on larger-scale government services. One would be totally out of line to extrapolate from what Jefferson said that he would have condoned the modern tax system. And if he would have, he would have been wrong.
Thomas Jefferson of LRC wrote:
The rich should pay more in taxes, just not in the form of a progressive income tax. They should pay in the form of tarriffs or user fees on larger-scale government services. One would be totally out of line to extrapolate from what Jefferson said that he would have condoned the modern tax system. And if he would have, he would have been wrong.
Translation: "Liberals are ruining this country because they don't understand the founding fathers! They were talking about taxing horses, which is completely different from today because we have cars! It's imperative that our country returns the principles of our founding fathers - unless of course those founding fathers disagree with me - in which case I say $@&% 'em."
"Translation: "Liberals are ruining this country because they don't understand the founding fathers! They were talking about taxing horses, which is completely different from today because we have cars! It's imperative that our country returns the principles of our founding fathers - unless of course those founding fathers disagree with me - in which case I say $@&% 'em.'"==================
10/10 This is perfect. Exactly what a Tea Partier would (does) say. I have my opinion and anyone (including a founding father) who doesn't agree 100%...$@& ..em!!!
I never understood the "rich should pay more" argument. Shouldn't the poor pay more and as an incentive to emerge from "poorness" pay less taxes as they progress up the ladder?
My purpose is to defend the principle of individual rights, not idea that we should emulate the Founding Fathers (who were an eclectic and imperfect bunch that included some very corrupt individuals) for the sake of following tradition.
Modern "liberals" (who are not true liberals at all, but regressives taking Western civilization back toward the dictatorship of the Middle Ages) have indeed almost totally destroyed the country, and are racing toward the goal of ensuring its complete destruction. The reason is that they are clueless about philosophy. The pseudoliberals deny that man has any rights, then turn around and arrogate to themselves the presumed right to vote their neighbors' property away and to the government the presumed right to tell "its" citizens what their rights are. They go to any lengths necessary to evade the contradictions. At best they resort to answering with crass generalizations about "Tea Partiers" in the hope of setting up a straw man to create the appearance of winning the argument.
I wasn't rationalizing anything about taxes, but it's a direct answer to the OP's question "does anyone else feel that way"? (see page 1, first post). Surely some others do, but as a percentage of the American population, not very many (maybe 1%) can identify with his problem. Just like the queen who said "let them eat cake", this guy is out of touch.I'm sure not many people in Nazi Germany thought it was fine to kill Jews, or were even aware of it. I'm sure that value is also less than 1%.Letting temporary tax cuts expire is not the same as "raising taxes".OP was talking about himself, and the other 1% like him.Let's be more clever about what we cut, or uncut, and stop giving tax breaks to those who don't need them the most.When we were on the verge of developing a budget surplus, why did we start giving our richest people free handouts from the government, while pointing the finger at food stamp recipients for getting something for nothing?
reading 101 wrote:
Not speaking for the OP, but if your rationalization is "the majority of Americans don't feel the way you do" then that is a horrible rationalization. I'm sure in nazi Germany many people thought it was just fine to kill Jews. I mean come on, there are OK arguments FOR raising taxes, but this is a pretty bad one.
But if the Bush tax cuts expire EVERYONE will be paying more, not just the OP.
If you pay 3 college tuitions and FIVE?? car insurances....you better be making $250K.
Holy crap. What did you expect.
Thomas Jefferson of LRC wrote:
Modern "liberals" (who are not true liberals at all, but regressives taking Western civilization back toward the dictatorship of the Middle Ages) have indeed almost totally destroyed the country, and are racing toward the goal of ensuring its complete destruction. The reason is that they are clueless about philosophy. The pseudoliberals deny that man has any rights, then turn around and arrogate to themselves the presumed right to vote their neighbors' property away and to the government the presumed right to tell "its" citizens what their rights are. They go to any lengths necessary to evade the contradictions. .
Seems you are confusing natural and legal rights. Someone may deny that natural rights exist but agree that legal rights are created by a contract between the government and the governed. There is a long philosophical tradition of this so they are not clueless, only espouse a different philosophy than yours. This isn't a contradiction at all.
Me? As much as I would love there to be inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't know of any logical or empirical evidence of their existence as anything other than communities of peoples creating them and establishing them, which makes them legal (and not natural) rights.
I have only read about half of this thread, but I figured I'd throw in my point of view anyway. As a disclaimer, I make 12% of what the OP makes, which is probably less than what he pays for taxes. I don't have any kids, and I don't have any school debt through help from my parents and scholarships. I live in the city of Chicago (I hate it when people say they live in Chicago and then they actually live an hour away, I run past the Willis tower when I do my long runs)
I live in a notoriously poor and violent neighborhood so all through the election I heard that I shouldn't vote for Romney because he was going to cut food stamps. I've seen the waste that most welfare programs have (I've also seen the extreme waste that goes into military budgets having grown up in an officer's family), but I've also seen the struggle of working people who are pushed off of the edge by any crisis.
Even though my salary is more than enough to support me (Over the past 12 months I have saved an average of $750 a month in addition to what I put in a 401k), I have gone through phases of extreme bitterness towards those who make substantially more than I. Through all of this I have come to the conclusion that a mindset of consumerism will never satisfy. It didn't matter that with my salary I am closing on a house in the next few weeks, had enough to buy plane tickets to travel for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and had 18k leftover in the bank, I was bitter because other people made more than I did for the same amount of work. Ironically, it is this same mindset that motivates those who work hard to achieve riches and that causes the lower classes to begrudge the rich their wealth. Though it is likely impossible, I believe that a movement against consumerism is the best thing that could happen to the US.
As far as taxes and the government is concerned, you can be sure that I support taxing those who make more at a higher rate. However, I don't want or need more money. I plan to keep saving money for retirement and college funds for future kids, but I now no longer feel entrapped by the desire for more.
free money! wrote:
I have only read about half of this thread, but I figured I'd throw in my point of view anyway. As a disclaimer, I make 12% of what the OP makes, which is probably less than what he pays for taxes. I don't have any kids, and I don't have any school debt through help from my parents and scholarships. I live in the city of Chicago (I hate it when people say they live in Chicago and then they actually live an hour away, I run past the Willis tower when I do my long runs)
I live in a notoriously poor and violent neighborhood so all through the election I heard that I shouldn't vote for Romney because he was going to cut food stamps. I've seen the waste that most welfare programs have (I've also seen the extreme waste that goes into military budgets having grown up in an officer's family), but I've also seen the struggle of working people who are pushed off of the edge by any crisis.
Even though my salary is more than enough to support me (Over the past 12 months I have saved an average of $750 a month in addition to what I put in a 401k), I have gone through phases of extreme bitterness towards those who make substantially more than I. Through all of this I have come to the conclusion that a mindset of consumerism will never satisfy. It didn't matter that with my salary I am closing on a house in the next few weeks, had enough to buy plane tickets to travel for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and had 18k leftover in the bank, I was bitter because other people made more than I did for the same amount of work. Ironically, it is this same mindset that motivates those who work hard to achieve riches and that causes the lower classes to begrudge the rich their wealth. Though it is likely impossible, I believe that a movement against consumerism is the best thing that could happen to the US.
As far as taxes and the government is concerned, you can be sure that I support taxing those who make more at a higher rate. However, I don't want or need more money. I plan to keep saving money for retirement and college funds for future kids, but I now no longer feel entrapped by the desire for more.
Being content with a low standard of living isn't a virtue. Being successful (on whatever scale is possible to you given your attributes) is. I couldn't care less how you or anyone else manages their money; you have a right to be as frugal or wasteful as you want with your own wealth. The side of this argument that wants to tell the OP how to reduce his expenses to make room in his budget for paying higher taxes is f*cking vile. Instead of asking productive citizens to take a haircut with their OWN money, why doesn't the GOVERNMENT spend less so that the citizens can enjoy more? You can take your budget deficit and shove it a mile up your @ss. Instead of making productive people pay off the national debt with their salaires, let's make the politicians who accrued it pay for it with their political careers.
reading 101 wrote:
Look at churches around the world. Every church (and there are hundreds of thousands) around the world operates and (most) were built purely by donations from the members. The point is, if people actually believe their money is going to a good cause, human beings are NOT reluctant to give money. Look at the Catholic Church for instance. They have billions and billions of dollars. Where do you think they get it? The vst majority comes from people who go to Mass on Sunday and donate. No one is forced. They believe in the cause their money is going to and they freely give. I, for example, would freely donate money to a fund if a street in my neighborhood needed to be paved or repaired (b/c of potholes, etc.) IF I knew that 100% of my money was going towards paving the street and paying the people to pave it...not to politicians and wasteful spending programs.....My overall point is that if the government had built a reputation of being responsible with money and good to the people, then people would be willing to freely give to it because they truly believe in the cause, and taxation would not be necesary. Much like the church. I give when I go to Mass every few weeks because I believe in the cause to which it is going. On the other hand, almost NO ONE freely gives to the government. Why?
1) So if the gov't convinced you that you would go to heaven if you gave more to it, then you wouldn't mind being taxed so much, or would freely donate to the gov't? (because isn't that sort of how the church convinces people to give? Let's face it, it is part of the reason people give)
2) Furthermore, you don't give to the gov't (or don't want to) partly because you think the gov't should only ask for $, not take it, but ALSO because you think the gov't is wasteful and don't believe in a lot of what it does. But you give to the the church because you think it is NOT so wasteful and you believe in what it does with your $?? Really. That's interesting because...
a) you might want to look at how the church manages the $ you give it. According to some, it is an absolute mess, certainly no less wasteful than the gov't:
http://www.economist.com/node/21560536b) you want "100%" of your gov't donations to go to EXACTLY what you gave it for. Really? Why don't you hold the church to the same standard?! A lot of the $ you gave them went to initially pay pedophile priests, then to defend those priests, and then to lobby the gov't to not extend the statute of limitations on abuse victims in order to save them some $ on lawsuits (they spend a LOT of $ lobbying the gov't). Is THAT what you were giving for?
c) much of what the church does, helping the poor and disadvantaged, is also what the gov't does. But because gov't does so in the name of "fairness" and what is good for our country, you don't like it, but because the church does it in the name of God, you do??
To emphasize this point, it may pain you to know that many leaders of the the catholic church explicitly complained about Paul Ryan's budget of tax cuts for the rich, and social program cuts for the poor, calling it "immoral" and "not christian."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75109.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-steenland/religious-leaders-condemn-ryan-romney-budget_b_1773356.htmlIt appears that many top catholics don't think progressive taxation is such an outrage as you do. In fact they SUPPORT it because they know it helps achieve many of the same goals they have. Good for them. Bad for you.
reading 101 wrote: Some try to paint republicans as evil money-hoarding people, but if this is so, why have several studies/surveys shown that republicas give more to charity than democrats?
Most of those "studies" were found to biased. Some excellent work done on this subject showed that blue states were by far more generous than red, especially if one factors in "cost of living" (i.e., a liberal might live in NYC, and one might only look a their earnings to determine what % of their wealth they gave in charity. But this ignores their high cost of living. In reality, many are giving a good % of what they have left, after living expenses, to charities, often more so than right wingers. But I know, you read something that agreed with your preconceived notions, so you ate it up, hook, line, and sinker)
areusure? wrote:
I never understood the "rich should pay more" argument. Shouldn't the poor pay more and as an incentive to emerge from "poorness" pay less taxes as they progress up the ladder?
If you think that poor people want to be poor - than you've never been poor - nor do you have the ability to correctly imagine what it must be like to be poor.
If you think that poor people want to be poor - than you've never been poor - nor do you have the ability to correctly imagine what it must be like to be poor.[/quote]
This is a ridiculous way to look at things.
Life isn't about what you want. You shouldnt get things because you want them. You should have things because you earned them.
25% of people in this country never graduated from high school. Another 25% probably loafed through without even trying. Thats 1/2 the country.
Some have disabilities and should be taken care of, the rest...Im sorry if you have been a bum your entire adult life you should not be asking for higher taxes from people who already pay for your roads, heat, food, police, fire, teachers, healthcare etc.
erwqwerqw wrote:
If you think that poor people want to be poor - than you've never been poor - nor do you have the ability to correctly imagine what it must be like to be poor.
This is a ridiculous way to look at things.
Life isn't about what you want. You shouldnt get things because you want them. You should have things because you earned them.
25% of people in this country never graduated from high school. Another 25% probably loafed through without even trying. Thats 1/2 the country.
Some have disabilities and should be taken care of, the rest...Im sorry if you have been a bum your entire adult life you should not be asking for higher taxes from people who already pay for your roads, heat, food, police, fire, teachers, healthcare etc.[/quote]
Im sure people will take exception to the above, but its the truth. If you cant/will not graduate from high school, why should you expect anything from anyone.
If you dont even think you are worth your time, why should someone else work their butt off to pay for your welfare. Again, anyone who has learning disorders, or other disabilities deserve full protection from society.
erwqwerqw wrote:
Some have disabilities and should be taken care of, the rest..
I am disabled and don't want to be "taken care of." The economic decline brought about by acts of government is the single greatest threat to the lives and happiness of disabled people like me.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Nothing remotely like that happened, nor will happen. There will always be an absurdly large gap between the super rich and the poor in this country. If you like that way, don't worry, it ain't going away at all. But by dropping that gap a teeny, weeny, bit, it will likely do EVERYONE in this country, rich and poor, some good.
make a law that says there will be zero tax increases in the future then. until u make a promise that your rhetoric will not increase anymore, i don't want that encroachment on people.
what i don't want is a trend toward a communistic average, you can use the same exact arguments again and again as the tax hike snowballs and increases again and again to 43%, 46%, 50%, 60%.
check out north korea, do you think a michael jackson will have the incentive to hone his skills to entertain? or do you think the disincentives are enough to cause people let children die starving in the streets?
what about the next american talent who is a struggling waittress but has a beautiful voice? she can rise up and make millions after winning a singing contest. why penalize her? why nickel and dime her an extra x thousand dollars? i say let her make her own independent choices.
and you've said nothing about the wars. if you promise to end the wars, cut wasteful spending, plasma screens showing lunch menu's, and promise to not increase taxes anymore above 40%, then i might listen.
rekrunner wrote:
Really? Do you build the roads you drive on? Did you go to public school? Your kids? Are you entitled to services from policemen, firemen?
nobody is saying all firefighters and policeman and schoolteachers should be fired.
nobody is saying that your house should burn down in case of an emergency.
strawman argument.
i want wasteful spending and wars to stop.
Benjamin Franklin of LRC wrote:
erwqwerqw wrote:Some have disabilities and should be taken care of, the rest..
I am disabled and don't want to be "taken care of." The economic decline brought about by acts of government is the single greatest threat to the lives and happiness of disabled people like me.
I am sorry that you are disabled. However, there are clearly people who need full assistance from the government due to their disabilities. If you deny that you are a callous POS.
erwqwerqw wrote:
This is a ridiculous way to look at things.
Life isn't about what you want. You shouldnt get things because you want them. You should have things because you earned them.
25% of people in this country never graduated from high school. Another 25% probably loafed through without even trying. Thats 1/2 the country.
Some have disabilities and should be taken care of, the rest...Im sorry if you have been a bum your entire adult life you should not be asking for higher taxes from people who already pay for your roads, heat, food, police, fire, teachers, healthcare etc.
You are either intentionally skewing my argument or you have a reading disability. I was saying that if the other poster thinks that "only if we had a more regressive tax code that people might not want to be poor anymore" - then he doesn't understand what it's like to be poor.
Nobody wants to be poor - regardless of the tax situation.
I did not say that just because poor people want to be rich that they should be rich.
I love your data rich post talking about 50% of Americans as moochers. Stop taking numbers from the sky and deal with reality. The number of people on long-term welfare is less than 1%. Almost all people are more happy when they are in a career that they enjoy - the reason that some people underachieve in life is more related to their lack of opportunities and access to people who show them how to be successful in life than just "being lazy".
Conservatives picture 50% of America sitting at home watching TV - waiting to receive their check from the government - that's just not reality. And this view is hurting our country because it devalues the importance of investment in education, infrastructure, and science as being integral to our economic development.
You better understand that China invests deeply in all these areas - and if we don't want to be left behind then we need to do away with this stupid and false image of all government money going to some slovish minority drifter whom you hate.
free money! wrote:
I was bitter because other people made more than I did for the same amount of work. Ironically, it is this same mindset that motivates those who work hard to achieve riches and that causes the lower classes to begrudge the rich their wealth.
you can be sure that I support taxing those who make more at a higher rate. However, I don't want or need more money.
thank you for your honesty.
i think there are posters here who will not admit their true reasons as to why they support a tax push.