Wealth Tax and Income redistribution

chamberpot

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,592
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent, Other
I hate to pull this card, I REALLY do, but this is exactly why the meme of "ok boomer" exists. First off lets look at minimum wage:

this is a 2020 updated graph, as the min wage for fed is still 7.25 but it is increasing in state local laws.

You where able be sucessful being a high school drop out because of the time. NOW if you drop out, you be hard pressed to get anywhere. We are now expected to be in collage. Even some police and fire like my city requires some collage level education. The demand for such things was much lower then. Furthermore you have less supply of low skill jobs where you can get away with being a high school drop out in modern times. It is mostly automated and other things. So you really can't compare this to now. (You had a higher minimum wage then vs now, keep this in mind) Also It seems you are missing the point of the post completely. It is basically posting a one sided view based on misinformation how taxes work saying it is not up to the rich to pay more in taxes because they are rich.

And I explained a few times how the taxes work and why it is fair and the issues with big businesses paying ZERO in taxes because of the loop holes they exploit. (in some cases the government pays them =/)
 

Attachments

Fluffybottoms

Softail
Est. Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
If you're making $7.25/hr and complaining that you can't afford rent or support a family you are the problem. You are taking a job away from a 14 to 19 year old. Get your diapered butt to a trade school and learn a trade. Takes 4 to 6 weeks to get an appointment for a decent plumber or electrition, the boomers are all retiring(you give them free healthcare and there will be alot more retired. 😆). Learn the trade......buy a few vans....hire a few people and bam your making $125k/yr.
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I think the whole idea is: "is a progressive tax fair?" Why should the "rich" have to pay more in taxes at any income level? It should be the same % at all levels of income if it were to be truly "fair", something along the lines of a single flat tax without any of the regressive sales taxes etc.
THEY DO PAY THE SAME!!!
EVERYONE that makes 9k and under, no matter who you are, be it making 50 million or 500 dollars or 50k, that first 9k IS NOT TAXED everyone pays the same no matter if you are rich or poor. This is infuriating to read that you are not taking what I have to say.

Flat tax is bad because when you put it in practice, JUST LIKE THE VIDEO I posted on this matter explained in detail ether makes the poor, poorer, because with a fat tax, you have to charge a too high amount to get the income you need as a country for the poor to handle, or you make it so low where you do not get enough revenue for the county. BOTH CASES means the rich keeps the huge wealth gap and makes the poor suffer.

YES! the progressive model is the fairest model you can have, you have not made a well thought out argument that suggest otherwise.
Imagine if you worked hard and made a successful company and the goverment came in and said you have to now divert your products to some highschool drug drop out? Is that fair? The drug user chose to use drugs and ruin their life and now you have to support them with free housing, free healthcare, free food, free rehab, free college options, and a monthly stipend. This is the part I dont understand. Why should any hard working person be forced (at gun point mind you) to help someone that, in most cases, doesn't want help and has done nothing to better society? I am all for charity and helping those that fall on rough times but they must be willing to jump back in and not just float along.

It's just always frustrating to have to work hard for the things I have and then watch as someone else get those things handed to them becuse they are "poor," especially because I am by no means rich but just not poor enough to get the hand outs :/
No this is flat out wrong and right wing propaganda and fear mongering the progressive tax system. What I do not understand is why you are twisting the situation into something that is not. This is called a straw man argument and does not address what I had to say and explain on the progressive tax system. You make me feel you are some billionaire trying to argue out of self interest.
-post with nothing but a baseless picture-
thank you for ignoring what I had to say I guess.
That funny and so true.
No it is not funny, we are here to have a discussion, not act immature by acting like this is twitter or something by replying to a well made out thought with right wing meme propaganda. It is very insulting.
If you're making $7.25/hr and complaining that you can't afford rent or support a family you are the problem. You are taking a job away from a 14 to 19 year old. Get your diapered butt to a trade school and learn a trade. Takes 4 to 6 weeks to get an appointment for a decent plumber or electrition, the boomers are all retiring(you give them free healthcare and there will be alot more retired. 😆). Learn the trade......buy a few vans....hire a few people and bam your making $125k/yr.
.....
off the point why the "7.25" was bought up.
 
Last edited:

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,038
Role
Private
Reading this post made my head hurt,, all I can say is hard work and sinceable spending is not that hard of concept to earn your way in this country (usa) I am not rich , not poor, I have worked hard , raise a fine family, about to retire to a comfortable life. I dropped out of high school..so no school debt, don't expect someone to hand you a free anything in life, work for it and earn it ,, in the 70's I had to relocate three times to keep up .. scarffices have to be made some time.. life is not easy deal with it.
I hate to pull this card, I REALLY do, but this is exactly why the meme of "ok boomer" exists.
I'm a boomer, too, but I have a different perspective on this. I'm fully aware that I had it much easier, relative to later generations, when it comes to earning a living. I struggled for years before I was qualified to take advantage of the opportunities that existed for finding employment in a good paying job, but I don't use my experiences as the measuring stick for today's generations because, the important thing is, most of those opportunities no longer exist in the way they did back then. Time doesn't stand still for anyone. Things are always changing. And our current level of political divisiveness is making us too stupid to deal with those changes effectively.
 
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
THEY DO PAY THE SAME!!!
EVERYONE that makes 9k and under, no matter who you are, be it making 50 million or 500 dollars or 50k, that first 9k IS NOT TAXED everyone pays the same no matter if you are rich or poor. This is infuriating to read that you are not taking what I have to say.

Flat tax is bad because when you put it in practice, JUST LIKE THE VIDEO I posted on this matter explained in detail ether makes the poor, poorer, because with a fat tax, you have to charge a too high amount to get the income you need as a country for the poor to handle, or you make it so low where you do not get enough revenue for the county. BOTH CASES means the rich keeps the huge wealth gap and makes the poor suffer.

YES! the progressive model is the fairest model you can have, you have not made a well thought out argument that suggest otherwise.

No this is flat out wrong and right wing propaganda and fear mongering the progressive tax system. What I do not understand is why you are twisting the situation into something that is not. This is called a straw man argument and does not address what I had to say and explain on the progressive tax system. You make me feel you are some billionaire trying to argue out of self interest.

thank you for ignoring what I had to say I guess.

No it is not funny, we are here to have a discussion, not act immature by acting like this is twitter or something by replying to a well made out thought with right wing meme propaganda. It is very insulting.

.....
off the point why the "7.25" was bought up.
Again you missed the entire point of this argument. Yes everyone pays the same on their first X amount of money and it goes up as you jump tax brackets etc but why should it go up? The higher you go the more % of your total income goes towards taxes. Look at the marginal Tax rates and you will see that the progressive system is broken.

This is causing the problem we are seeing.. and no it is not right wing propaganda to say people are freeloading off the system.. this is a ridiculous statement and shows how naive you are.. people purposely avoid jumping tax brackets and stay under X amount on paper so they can still receive goverment handouts but then get paid cash on the side and end up making a lot more than someone who isn't poor enough to receive benefits. We see this a lot with street beggars. A recent study done in California has shown that they can make upwards of $50/hr completely "tax" free. They estimated that a lot of these "beggars" make around 35k a year from begging and since none of it is reported they still get all the government programs such as food stamps, wick, free school lunch, etc.. so in the end they end up making twice what some hardworking person makes becsuse they "pay the same" on their first 9k (of 0%) but then manipulate the system to avoid the next tax jump.

Again the government has a money management problem that is far worse a problem then saying the rich don't pay enough taxes. Then you have the socialist Bernie that wants to come in and raise everyone's taxes again to pay for more free stuff? This will just lead to an exaggerated abuse of the already bankrupt welfare system.

Yes a flat tax may only sound good in theory but something needs to be done so that the middle class isnt footing the bill. Both the poor and rich should pay an equal % of their total income in order for it to be a "fair" system.

Its hard because if you tax the rich they just pass on the cost and if you take away deductions then, like others have said, we lose the million dollar donations to parks and charities that they use to write of taxes. Taxing the poor is just as hard because there is no way to really trace who isn't making a butload of cash on the side and who is actually struggling.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Again you missed the entire point of this argument. Yes everyone pays the same on their first X amount of money and it goes up as you jump tax brackets etc but why should it go up? The higher you go the more % of your total income goes towards taxes. Look at the marginal Tax rates and you will see that the progressive system is broken.

This is causing the problem we are seeing.. and no it is not right wing propaganda to say people are freeloading off the system.. this is a ridiculous statement and shows how naive you are.. people purposely avoid jumping tax brackets and stay under X amount on paper so they can still receive goverment handouts but then get paid cash on the side and end up making a lot more than someone who isn't poor enough to receive benefits. We see this a lot with street beggars. A recent study done in California has shown that they can make upwards of $50/hr completely "tax" free. They estimated that a lot of these "beggars" make around 35k a year from begging and since none of it is reported they still get all the government programs such as food stamps, wick, free school lunch, etc.. so in the end they end up making twice what some hardworking person makes becsuse they "pay the same" on their first 9k (of 0%) but then manipulate the system to avoid the next tax jump.

Again the government has a money management problem that is far worse a problem then saying the rich don't pay enough taxes. Then you have the socialist Bernie that wants to come in and raise everyone's taxes again to pay for more free stuff? This will just lead to an exaggerated abuse of the already bankrupt welfare system.

Yes a flat tax may only sound good in theory but something needs to be done so that the middle class isnt footing the bill. Both the poor and rich should pay an equal % of their total income in order for it to be a "fair" system.

Its hard because if you tax the rich they just pass on the cost and if you take away deductions then, like others have said, we lose the million dollar donations to parks and charities that they use to write of taxes. Taxing the poor is just as hard because there is no way to really trace who isn't making a butload of cash on the side and who is actually struggling.
"why should it go up?"
THIS.. was.. explained to you several times now.

instead of having a rate poor can't afford, they have deflated rates. Then you get to the middle brackets that have the average rate, then you have the highest ones that are a bit inflated, and when you average it out, even for the rich you are so bent on defending, have a lower effective tax rate then you believe. I point this video to you again at this time stamp:
even though some of his income is taxed at the 28% rate, if you compare what he made vs what was taken out, the effective tax rate was 20.98%

As I said several times, that you keep ignoring, if you had a flat tax rate, you are ether making it so high that the poor cant afford it, like 36% of 9000 is 3240, how you expect someone to live off of 5760? Or you are making it too low where the country can't get the revenue it needs and just making the rich , richer. Do you understand the problems with the flat tax rate now? The video even said someone tries to come out and propose a flat tax system that ends up never happening because it DOES NOT WORK. its not a "FRESH" idea because it is some revolutionary idea that we do not do it. We do not do it because it is not effective after you really look deep in the matter. Simple is not the best system in this case. He then also goes with a number that was propsoed before, 18% flat tax, again the poorer sees their taxes go up, while the upper class taxes go down (though that 100k example I would ague is middle class)

Further you did not reflect the information presented a lot of big businesses explot loop holes and as shown on the first page, showed amazon did not pay taxes because how it takes advantage being international and exploits filing things. (I am actually unaware the detail how and why they are able do it, just the problem exists and someone linked you to the actual filing you ingored)

People "FREE LOAF" any system you are going to have people that explot a system. You are so bent on attacking the "poor" free loaders you forget/ignore about the rich that do it. The reason I called your thing a stawman right wing propaganda is because it is, All you did was throw out an argument that does not address the progressive tax system itself, and instead implied "We have some free loaders because of the progressive system so flat tax is better" No that is not how these discussions should work. I am not "naive"because you do not understand what I am saying.

"people purposely avoid jumping tax brackets and stay under X amount on paper so they can still receive goverment handouts but then get paid cash on the side and end up making a lot more than someone who isn't poor enough to receive benefits. "

this has nothing to do with the progressive tax system itself, and that problem would still exist under a flat tax system. Basically you are blaming people not claiming their full income because of avoiding more taxes, that would exist under any tax system.

"Again the government has a money management problem that is far worse a problem then saying the rich don't pay enough taxes. "

another stawman, it was shown why people do not pay enough taxes, again stop ignoring facts that put your position in a bad spot.

"Then you have the socialist Bernie that wants to come in and raise everyone's taxes again to pay for more free stuff? This will just lead to an exaggerated abuse of the already bankrupt welfare system"

no, this is wrong, again this is right wing propaganda. That is not what is happening and I gave you links to his website. Can you please use references and sources when you form an idea, because you are not doing that. All you are doing is misrepresenting information to fear monger.

Maybe this will help open you up to the idea to consider ideas outside your own. If I where to reword your posistion a bit, like you thinking flat tax is best. Why not simply say you want the rich to be richer and the poor to be poorer because you think everyone has the ability to make 40m+ a year if they only "work harder"
 
Last edited:

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,038
Role
Private
I think the whole idea is: "is a progressive tax fair?" Why should the "rich" have to pay more in taxes at any income level? It should be the same % at all levels of income if it were to be truly "fair", something along the lines of a single flat tax without any of the regressive sales taxes etc.
I say yes - it's fair. How do we settle the matter?
Imagine if you worked hard and made a successful company and the goverment came in and said you have to now divert your products to some highschool drug drop out? Is that fair? The drug user chose to use drugs and ruin their life and now you have to support them with free housing, free healthcare, free food, free rehab, free college options, and a monthly stipend. This is the part I dont understand. Why should any hard working person be forced (at gun point mind you) to help someone that, in most cases, doesn't want help and has done nothing to better society? I am all for charity and helping those that fall on rough times but they must be willing to jump back in and not just float along.
It doesn't help to state your case in distorted, exaggerated responses. Illegal drug use is a problem. So is homelessness. The two are sometimes, but not always, related, and should be dealt with in ways that address their specific problems. As a nation we will always support some level of welfare through taxes, and that's fair because, as a democratic nation, we all have the same right to participate in the decision making process if we are willing to put in the effort. The wealthy will always have power advantages no matter what form of government they are in, but we can at least try to compensate for that.
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I say yes - it's fair. How do we settle the matter?

It doesn't help to state your case in distorted, exaggerated responses. Illegal drug use is a problem. So is homelessness. The two are sometimes, but not always, related, and should be dealt with in ways that address their specific problems. As a nation we will always support some level of welfare through taxes, and that's fair because, as a democratic nation, we all have the same right to participate in the decision making process if we are willing to put in the effort. The wealthy will always have power advantages no matter what form of government they are in, but we can at least try to compensate for that.
Thank you, now with more then one person saying it, maybe he will step back and think about what he is really saying. ( I am actually shocked to hear you are a boomer, I am glad there are some that understand the times are different)
 
Last edited:
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
"why should it go up?"
THIS.. was.. explained to you several times now.

instead of having a rate poor can't afford, they have deflated rates. Then you get to the middle brackets that have the average rate, then you have the highest ones that are a bit inflated, and when you average it out, even for the rich you are so bent on defending, have a lower effective tax rate then you believe. I point this video to you again at this time stamp:
even though some of his income is taxed at the 28% rate, if you compare what he made vs what was taken out, the effective tax rate was 20.98%

As I said several times, that you keep ignoring, if you had a flat tax rate, you are ether making it so high that the poor cant afford it, like 36% of 9000 is 3240, how you expect someone to live off of 5760? Or you are making it too low where the country can't get the revenue it needs and just making the rich , richer. Do you understand the problems with the flat tax rate now? The video even said someone tries to come out and propose a flat tax system that ends up never happening because it DOES NOT WORK. its not a "FRESH" idea because it is some revolutionary idea that we do not do it. We do not do it because it is not effective after you really look deep in the matter. Simple is not the best system in this case. He then also goes with a number that was propsoed before, 18% flat tax, again the poorer sees their taxes go up, while the upper class taxes go down (though that 100k example I would ague is middle class)

Further you did not reflect the information presented a lot of big businesses explot loop holes and as shown on the first page, showed amazon did not pay taxes because how it takes advantage being international and exploits filing things. (I am actually unaware the detail how and why they are able do it, just the problem exists and someone linked you to the actual filing you ingored)

People "FREE LOAF" any system you are going to have people that explot a system. You are so bent on attacking the "poor" free loaders you forget/ignore about the rich that do it. The reason I called your thing a stawman right wing propaganda is because it is, All you did was throw out an argument that does not address the progressive tax system itself, and instead implied "We have some free loaders because of the progressive system so flat tax is better" No that is not how these discussions should work. I am not "naive"because you do not understand what I am saying.

"people purposely avoid jumping tax brackets and stay under X amount on paper so they can still receive goverment handouts but then get paid cash on the side and end up making a lot more than someone who isn't poor enough to receive benefits. "

this has nothing to do with the progressive tax system itself, and that problem would still exist under a flat tax system. Basically you are blaming people not claiming their full income because of avoiding more taxes, that would exist under any tax system.

"Again the government has a money management problem that is far worse a problem then saying the rich don't pay enough taxes. "

another stawman, it was shown why people do not pay enough taxes, again stop ignoring facts that put your position in a bad spot.

"Then you have the socialist Bernie that wants to come in and raise everyone's taxes again to pay for more free stuff? This will just lead to an exaggerated abuse of the already bankrupt welfare system"

no, this is wrong, again this is right wing propaganda. That is not what is happening and I gave you links to his website. Can you please use references and sources when you form an idea, because you are not doing that. All you are doing is misrepresenting information to fear monger.

Maybe this will help open you up to the idea to consider ideas outside your own. If I where to reword your posistion a bit, like you thinking flat tax is best. Why not simply say you want the rich to be richer and the poor to be poorer because you think everyone has the ability to make 40m+ a year if they only "work harder"
Again you seemed to have missed the entire argument. Again the question is "is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy?" Why should those at any income have to take care of those that can't take care of themselves? For example should someone that struggles, making only 30k a year be forced to pay for someones drug habit like they do in the "free needle program" in San Francisco?

You say there are freeloaders on the top of the pile but they are the ones that supplying products that everyone buys and are only their because we put them there.

Yes there are loopholes that need to be fixed, no a flat tax obviously wouldn't work (it just sounds more fair on paper and I have said this in ealrier posts), and yes there will always be free loaders as long as their is welfare system.

The question is what do we do about it? Bernie's main campain point is to nationalize everything such as energy, and healthcare and then tax the rich to pay for it. This is projected to add another 30 trillion dollar's to national debt (on top of current spending) over 10 years or something like that and it just isn't feasible. And who is to say these big conpanies wont just pack up and leave?

He is also proposing to pay off everyone's college debt, again how is this fair? Should some hardworking person that scrimpted and saved pay for someone else's child because they went on vacations and didn't save for college? Should someone that has competed college and payed off their own loans now have their taxes raised in order to pay off someone else's loans?
 
Messages
108
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
I say yes - it's fair. How do we settle the matter?

It doesn't help to state your case in distorted, exaggerated responses. Illegal drug use is a problem. So is homelessness. The two are sometimes, but not always, related, and should be dealt with in ways that address their specific problems. As a nation we will always support some level of welfare through taxes, and that's fair because, as a democratic nation, we all have the same right to participate in the decision making process if we are willing to put in the effort. The wealthy will always have power advantages no matter what form of government they are in, but we can at least try to compensate for that.
The problem is that in most cases they are related are the biggest drain on the tax system. Take a look at San Francisco for example where taxes are funding free needle programs so that drug users can "safley" use their drugs. Is this the kind of thing our taxes should be funding? And if the problem increases in population should taxes increase to supply more? What about narcan? Where i live it costs 600-2000 dollars a dose and takes multiple doeses to pull someone out of an overdose. This too is freely given out to homeless but is charged to those that have it just incase. Doesn't make sense :/
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Again you seemed to have missed the entire argument. Again the question is "is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy?" Why should those at any income have to take care of those that can't take care of themselves? For example should someone that struggles, making only 30k a year be forced to pay for someones drug habit like they do in the "free needle program" in San Francisco?
Get off the strawmans and we can have a cavil conversation..
You know, I can do this for you, lets pretend you only said this:
"Again you seemed to have missed the entire argument. Again the question is "is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy?"

I think you are confused. Like I said, everyone gets taxed the same. If you make 50k a year, 9k a year, 500 million a year, WHATEVER you make, that first 9k DOES NOT GET TAXED. WHAT IN THE HELL does the stuff I omitted have to do with this concept? NO MATTER IF YOU HAVE A FLAT tax, regressive tax, so on, those taxes are going to fund social programs that you are trying to right wing fear monger.

Let me reword your question on what I think you mean:
"Why should the rich have increasing tax amount brackets?"

I explained this, if we kept the income we currently have, we would need around a 37% flat tax, and that is too much. So to offset this, the lower ends are smaller then this, then the upper bragets are bigger to make up for that. If you are making so much where you can give away 99.9% of your money and still have more then 50-80% of the popluation, you are able to cover a bit more taxes in those higher brackets. The taxes you pay goes into nat defense, social retirement... etc etc.. police fire .. etc.. someone needs to pay for all this, and the poor can't afford to.

"You say there are freeloaders on the top of the pile but they are the ones that supplying products that everyone buys and are only their because we put them there. "

You are twisting my words around, no saying this does not make your point of view stronger. What I was trying to say is, you are trying to hate on the poor so much saying they have to pay more money in taxes, why? Why do you want to tax the poor more and tax the rich less? Do you understand what I was trying to explain? You want to tax the people that can't afford to be taxed more, while people that can afford it less. Do you think taxing people into being homeless will magically make people to "work hard" ?

"The question is what do we do about it? Bernie's main campain point is to nationalize everything such as energy, and healthcare and then tax the rich to pay for it. This is projected to add another 30 trillion dollar's to national debt (on top of current spending) over 10 years or something like that and it just isn't feasible. And who is to say these big conpanies wont just pack up and leave? "

you see trump's ideas working? No they are not. You are also been misrepresenting Bernie this whole thread so I am not commenting on details here because of that. Also what do you mean big companies wont just pack up and leave? a lot been already.. wth is the point of stating this and what does this have to do with the progressive tax system? You are mixing concepts together and not making much sense anymore.

First you need step back and understand there are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES being talked here

1. the progressive tax system, how to make it "fair" and what is "fair"

2. how and what should we spend the tax money on? (people freeloading the government has nothing to do with the tax system we use to tax people)

3. The taxation on big businesses and how much we can tax them before they simply leave. Do you have an idea what the best rate is? the best balance? All I see is slaming democrat views and promoting right wing propaganda.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The problem is that in most cases they are related are the biggest drain on the tax system. Take a look at San Francisco for example where taxes are funding free needle programs so that drug users can "safley" use their drugs. Is this the kind of thing our taxes should be funding? And if the problem increases in population should taxes increase to supply more? What about narcan? Where i live it costs 600-2000 dollars a dose and takes multiple doeses to pull someone out of an overdose. This too is freely given out to homeless but is charged to those that have it just incase. Doesn't make sense :/
NOT RELATED to the progressive tax system!!!!!!
^ stop doing that, no matter what tax system you have, you are going to have those issues you are talking about, talk about the tax system it self, talk about those socail problems itself, the 2 subjects are not related.
 
Last edited:

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
20,839
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
One thing that helped us Boomers was the cost of housing. My wife and I paid $15,000 for our first house. It was an old, two story frame house, two bedrooms and one ancient bathroom but it was ours (and the banks). I fixed it up and we were able to use the gain on the sale to buy a $40,000 house. We sold that and bought a $70,000 house which now is valued close to $200,000.

You can still buy old houses, fix them up and flip them but not if you're working two jobs just to make ends meet and that's what a lot of the younger generation has to do. I think working life is much harder now than when I was starting out. Just say'n.
 

Lestat

Contributor
Messages
1,278
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
The question is what do we do about it? Bernie's main campain point is to nationalize everything such as energy, and healthcare and then tax the rich to pay for it. This is projected to add another 30 trillion dollar's to national debt (on top of current spending) over 10 years or something like that and it just isn't feasible. And who is to say these big conpanies wont just pack up and leave?
Note that was just on healthcare for all. Not his other plans like Collage and such.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,038
Role
Private
The problem is that in most cases they are related are the biggest drain on the tax system. Take a look at San Francisco for example where taxes are funding free needle programs so that drug users can "safley" use their drugs. Is this the kind of thing our taxes should be funding?
Our drug problem is complicated but it isn't the biggest drain on taxes. It's only a small part of the spending we do for general welfare, and welfare spending isn't that big compared to spending on the military or infrastructure. Many of our social programs, such as our education system, are more a part of our infrastructure than general welfare.

Our real problem is that we have been spending more than what we've been earning as a nation for the last 40 years, resulting in increased borrowing which has increased the national debt to an unprecedented level. We have become addicted to borrowing from our children's future and from foreign governments. We should all bow to the east and thank the Chinese for the last tax cut we gave ourselves. The U.S. no longer has any ambition to sustain itself and is dependent on global welfare to pay it's expenses. Only it's not technically welfare. It's money we are borrowing with no intention of paying back.

I still say that, when it comes to fairness in taxes, the emphasis should be placed on that amount of disposable income an individual has, rather than total income.
 

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Our drug problem is complicated but it isn't the biggest drain on taxes. It's only a small part of the spending we do for general welfare, and welfare spending isn't that big compared to spending on the military or infrastructure. Many of our social programs, such as our education system, are more a part of our infrastructure than general welfare.

Our real problem is that we have been spending more than what we've been earning as a nation for the last 40 years, resulting in increased borrowing which has increased the national debt to an unprecedented level. We have become addicted to borrowing from our children's future and from foreign governments. We should all bow to the east and thank the Chinese for the last tax cut we gave ourselves. The U.S. no longer has any ambition to sustain itself and is dependent on global welfare to pay it's expenses. Only it's not technically welfare. It's money we are borrowing with no intention of paying back.

I still say that, when it comes to fairness in taxes, the emphasis should be placed on that amount of disposable income an individual has, rather than total income.
yeah we can very well talk about that, but like I been saying to him is what we ta and what amount we tax along with the reasons, has nothing to do with if we should use the progressive ta system. He keeps insisting on saying we have all these tax drains on people that abuse the system, while true and it can be addressed, that issue has nothing to do with the progressive tax system. Mixing those issues is the biggest issue I have with this thread right now. Arguments like that is what the right wing likes to do to ague its self interests.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,748
Role
Diaper Lover
I dont even see why someone would argue against making the Mega Rich pay more in taxes, they keep getting wealthier by abusing tax loopholes and most of them pay their employees the very bare minimum allowed in Wages with Little to No Benefits (if they are making $100+ Million per year they can easily pay their workers more and pay for Health, Dental, and Vision Benefits)

What is even the point of having $5 Billion, $10 Billion, and so on? It seems like they can never have enough money and want more and more and more; while most of us just want to live comfortably (meaning bills paid with some money to spend on Hobbies to keep ourselves busy, not having a Mansion, Expensive Cars, a Yacht, and so on)

As a Nation we could and should be doing so much more with what we have and stop spending on stupid shit, like we dont need to be at war constantly; spending more on our Military than the next 12 nations combined

Its baffling to say "we dont have enough to have National HealthCare, but we can spend $700 Billion on a Space Force"

What kind of sense does that make?

Anyways I'm getting off track
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Contributor
Messages
2,440
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I dont even see why someone would argue against making the Mega Rich pay more in taxes, they keep getting wealthier by abusing tax loopholes and most of them pay their employees the very bare minimum allowed in Wages with Little to No Benefits (if they are making $100+ Million per year they can easily pay their workers more and pay for Health, Dental, and Vision Benefits)

What is even the point of having $5 Billion, $10 Billion, and so on? It seems like they can never have enough money and want more and more and more; while most of us just want to live comfortably (meaning bills paid with some money to spend on Hobbies to keep ourselves busy, not having a Mansion, Expensive Cars, a Yacht, and so on)

As a Nation we could and should be doing so much more with what we have and stop spending on stupid shit, like we dont need to be at war constantly; spending more on our Military than the next 12 nations combined

Its baffling to say "we dont have enough to have National HealthCare, but we can spend $700 Billion on a Space Force"

What kind of sense does that make?

Anyways I'm getting off track
i can understand it to an extent, the base idea is this. Why should the rich pay more then x amount (do note they have to pay taxes) more then they should have to to cover for people that do not help themselves or want to leech. While again this is worth talking about and maybe some think tanks on what that amount is, it has nothing to do with the progressive tax model. No matter what tax model you use, this will be an issue, therefor the 2 are unrelated. So you need 2 different discussions, one that talks about how much the rich should pay, and another about the tax model we use and why its fair or not.

As several of us talked about, including yourself, the idea the rich pay too much to cover people that do not help themselves is an invalid one as they do not pay enough because of the loop holes they exploit. This argument itself has nothing to do with funding people that want to leech off the system because yet again, no matter what amount you tax, no matter the system you use, this issue would exist and therefor have to be treated as different issues.

My only guess I can give for not following this kind of logic may have to do being around a strong right wing echo chamber, where it may be hard to see other points of view from being around one way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Top