It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It doesn’t matter if you made your money by moving up from a laborer to a carpenter to a contractor and working hard
Originally posted by curme
It amazes me how no one questions the patriotism of big companies
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
These people will quack about "people paying their fair share". I gather that means that it is "fair" for a wealthy person to pay more taxes, not because he uses up more government goods and services (because he doesn't) but because his is richer than the other guy and therefore needs to be punished.
Actually, I think you would be surprised by the numbers of people who DO question corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading, tax evasion etc.
It's just not the most popular of topics at ATS.
Anyway, it would need to be demonstrated how corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading and tax evasion are unpatriotic and against the core values of the society you are in.
According to Adam Smith, one of the canons of taxation is "ability to pay"--ie, a progressive tax.
Living in a democracy comes with the duty to use some of your private resources for the public good. Perhaps if people were naturally more charitable, the need for taxes wouldn't exist, but you and I know this isn't the case. Nobody likes paying taxes, but they are necessary--and they should be progressive.
The wealthy may feel "punished" for being wealthy--but they benefit from a stable economy and a prosperous society, no?
A top-heavy society, or one where there is a huge gap between the wealthy and the lower income brackets is not one that is destined to survive.
Perhaps there are those with incomes that exceed $1 million a year that have a "let them eat cake" mentality, but these people don't want to live in a society where there is no viable middle class. Remember how good things were in the Dark Ages?
With that in mind, is it more equitable to impose a tax system where people at the bottom of the food chain can't afford basic needs because of their share of the tax burden?
A simplified progressive system is the solution. A proportional (flat tax) or regressive (VAT or national sales tax) system will just tax the people who can't afford it even more and result in misery for everyone.
Originally posted by RANT
my next biggest pet peeve is poor people that don't know they're poor.
Flat tax!!!! On ALL income, including interest. Same for everybody, no tax breaks on anykind.
1. Promoting the 'confiscatory' nature of tax structures can serve to legitimize tax evasion, even as a sport;
2. Legitimizing tax evasion can serve to legitimize other corrupt practices in an apologist environment based around the importance of entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic and beating the taxman as opposed to corporate citizenship.
The worst offenders are the big corporations, not the petit bourgeois.
We Demand A Just System of Taxation. Each should bear the burden he can carry. In the place of existing taxes there should be a progressive income tax.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
let's look at the services everyone gets.
National defense. We all get the same.
The point is, tax is not about wealth redistribution. It is about development of infrastructure to make a society function for all its members - including the provision of services for the public good without a profit motive.
The decades-old arguments about tax as a disincentive for "successful" people is based on an idealistic vision of capital and meritocracy that has never existed in the US.
Redistribution to those who are not really in need is just a way of buying votes with OPM (other peoples money).
Originally posted by Skibum
usually for those people ( middle class and poor ) they cant have a limit in reaching something because usually if you have and idea and want to you use it onther guy with much power and money than you will take your idea and use it for his use.
Thats what patents, copyrights and trademarks are for.
Funny you mentioned Bill Gates because IIRC he didn't start off being the richest person in the world. Imagine if he had resigned himself to finishing college and going on to work for someone else. Instead he had the guts to drop out and persue his own wealth.
[edit on 6/6/05 by Skibum]
Companies and corporations decide they want to more a branch of their business into an area, and well, roads need to be widened, and other changes made to accomodate them....who pays for this?
In plain simple words, the businesses and the Rich more than likely get as much a the poor do in benefit from our government. and it probably equals out overall.