.cb new_rayz said:
regressive tax is doomed to fail. Rich can afford to pay more. As they should. Also rich can do this really effective thing called Lobbying. See, they can buy lobbyists, which do whatever it takes to get the targeted official to side with their client. Now I’m sure you will point out Obama and his contradiction on that issue (by making exceptions to a lobbyist to be in his cabinet), but my issue isn’t the lobbyist, but the ones who are able to afford lobbyist. AKA the RICH.
So what you’re saying is since the rich have more they should pay more. They already pay the majority of the taxes, how much would you like them to pay? All of it? As I’ve stated before the top 50% ($60,000+) of income earners already pay 96% of the taxes, is that ok? No, that’s a screwed up system. The poor CAN afford to pay taxes, and just like everyone else, they should. What you’re beating around the bush about here is whether or not the poor are entitled to the same standard of living asthe rich. No, they are not, because they are NOT rich. Making the rich pay for their lifestyle benefits such as free healthcare, free medicine, free food, etc, doesn’t help them get anywhere in life. Fundamentally, there’s no reason for them to get higher in society because they lose everything they’ve been getting for free and have to pay for what they consider should already be a free handout.
Another thing you’re dancing around is history. History itself proves time and again that when you tax the people directly responsible for job creation you hurt the economy. It also proves that as you move the bar of who pays taxes and who doesn’t further up you actually get less money in taxes. Odd but that’s how it works.
Also, you seem to suggest that lobbying is the primary way for rich people to get their way in Congress. I’m not even going to touch the stupidity or hypocracy of that. Not 2 weeks into office Obama was already breaking campaign promises on stopping or curbing the influence of labbyists. Yeah, GG on that one.
.cb new_rayz said:
The article you posted contradicts itself within the first 4 paragraphs. I stop reading an article when I see something like that although I’ve noticed such an oddity usually occurs in traditionally liberal US papers (NY Times, Washinton Post, etc) and almost all European publications.
.cb new_rayz said:
Mr. Buffet seems to think so as well. Granted this is just another stunt by the Buffmaster to make more money, but I like this article because it points out some of the obvious:
Republicans want to make up for revenue by taxing the poor.
Rich people can afford the “heavy” tax burden, because they have more ways to avoid portions of it.
It would cause the rift between rich and poor to grow larger than it already is.
If one of the richest people in the world feels like paying more, that’s on him. If he feels guilty about being so rich that doesn’t give him the right to shame those LESS WEALTHY THAN HIMSELF into paying more in taxes. He’s always welcome to pick a charity and donate, as most wealthy already do freely. He should not be giving everyone else lectures about tax code considering the fact that he’s not a tax expert and likely hasn’t done his own taxes in decades.
The Republican’s don’t want to make up for revenue by taxing the poor. We simply want everyone to pay a fair share. Even if the lower 30% only paid $5/year in taxes, they would still have pulled SOME weight. If we want to spend all this money to help them survive they should at least acknowledge it. Sit down with a calculator and add up how much someone who doesn’t pay any taxes actually gets for free each year. It’s mind boggling. On second thought, just sit down and add up how much you spend in food each year, that alone should open your eyes.
It’s odd that one of your reasons for the rich to pay more is because they have more ways to avoid paying it. The vast majority of tax deducations still require you to pay money somewhere. Now if a rich person decides to give money directly to a local homeless shelter, you saying that shouldn’t mean something to the tax people? Even AFTER deductions and “evasions”, the rich still pay the vast majority of taxes, that little fact blows that argument away.
It’s interesting that you mention the divide between rich and poor. The funny thing about socialism is that it is absolutely 100% guaranteed to destroy the middle class. Take a good look at communist Russia, they based their economy and tax code on the spreading the wealth and balancing everything out. The result? A very few rich, powerful people and a country full of poor people. How naive you are to think we, the most disorganized bureaucracy on the planet, can do any better. Not even the Messiah can make a system based on stupid idealism work.
.cb new_rayz said:
“You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families, or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million family pay an extra $1,000?,” he said.
Here’s an interesting fact, if we took Obama’s stimulus package and just gave it away, EVERY homeowner in the country could get a $17,000 UNTAXED check in the mail. Of course, we can’t give money to the people themselves, we should just trust Obama’s judgement because he knows how it could be better spent. You know, paying unions and such.
.cb new_rayz said:
Boohoo that’s so mean of us to do, taking almost 50 percent of their moneys. We shouldn’t be mean to people who make billions. Cuz if we tax them, they will still have billions?? And will probably make a profit that year. While little old grandma in Low Income, United States, won’t get taxed as much, but still wont be able to afford anything close to what Mr. Billionaire has.
If only the richest pay taxes we’ll end up like communist Russia. See previous comment.
Tell me why people that don’t make money should still be allowed to live the lifestyle of those that do. If someone dropped out of high school, had a few kids, and is now poor, (for obvious reasons) should they expect to be rewarded with the lifestyle of someone who didn’t drop out of highschool, who didnt’ have kids before they were financially ready, and who has earned a well-of lifestyle. You can’t reward failure and laziness expect the majority of the nation to NOT notice the easier path in life.
.cb new_rayz said:
You guys always fail to figure in quality of life, and price of living. House + Car is almost 80 percent of a persons (who makes 100k or less) income. While Mr. Moneybags can afford to buy 10 houses, rent off 8, own a car company, and a few Yachts. Assets = another reason they are taxed more. More assets you have, the more they should pay for our governments services.
How does someone paying taxes on property have anything to do with this discussion? If someone can afford revenue streams like rental properties, they’re going to pay taxes just like EVERYONE else. The way the current housing market is, literally anyone in the middle class can afford to buy extra rental homes so this point is actually pretty moot. Unfortunately for your argument, property taxes going up affect everyone equally, even the poor, so yeah, lets raise them. 
.cb new_rayz said:
And as far as people who don’t pay taxes. Some people just can’t afford too.
If you can afford to make money, you can afford to pay taxes. If you can afford to get free handouts from the government, you can afford to pay taxes.
Try this, drive around the poor part of your town and try to find a “poor” person who doesn’t have a nice or “pimped” car, who doesn’t smoke or do some sort of drugs, who doesn’t have a cell phone or a home phone or cable/satellite. When I worked for the local power company I was routinely in poor parts of cities and saw this same thing on virtually every street, regardless of how poor the people looked or how terrible their house was, they were still able to afford the things they wanted, regardless of whether they really needed it or not. If you really do this I think you’ll be surprised at just what the poor people CAN afford.
.cb new_rayz said:
And don’t say there is no such thing as bad fortune, because if a man can be born with a billion dollars to his name, than a man can be born with nothing, on the streets. And both men in my eyes, regardless of taxes, are citizens of the United States, and I’ll be damned if I ever let any republican try to take that away.
The vast majority of “rich” people earned it themselves. Only richest of the rich were born into wealth and didn’t have to work for it. Most business people will tell you that those that had to earn their wealth are typically the ones who do the best managing it. The rich don’t stay rich forever, eventually they’ll lose it. It’s a cycle, just like everything else in this country.
We broke off from England because we didn’t want taxation without representation and at the time the reverse was also true, no representation without taxation. Odd how we have now come full circle to the exact opposite extreme as those with the most political power get it from those with the least taxation.
.cb new_rayz said:
I’d rather give 1000 cheaters the benefit of our system, than punish 1 person who honestly just has had some bad luck and needs a helping hand.
Who gets to decide which is which, and who gets to draw the line? I guess it doesn’t really matter. If Congress doesn’t deliver Obama will find some way to executive order policy into existance. Did you know he’s actually got people trying to find loopholes that would allow him to sign the Kyoto Treaty without the required congressional approval? Once that line has been crossed he will essentially become a monarch until he finds a way to bypass the courts then he’ll be a dictator. The way things have been going lately, I actually don’t see that as an impossible task for a president anymore. But I guess I have to wait until he’s almost done before I’m allowed to complain about it. You know, give him a chance. 