It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm sure the poor would be comfortable paying their share, just so long as they were assured the corproations that overshadow them are doing the same.
Nobody wants punishment, they want equality and fairness. Remember when you were a little kid, how much it pissed you off when someone wasn't playing fairly? What happened to that righteous indignation OTS? How to find it again?
.
Why should trusts, insider information, offshore accounts, and market manipulations be allowed to occur when they very clearly do not benefit the country.
These obscenely wealthy individuals, and the entities they profit from, are in most ways above the law. How often do you see them on the six o' clock news, despite their persistent criminality?
We've done horrible things as a nation, and we deserve to fall.
Your second philosophy is shared not only by most people on this thread, it’s shared by most humans. It’s called Progressive Taxation and I doubt anyone would be embarrassed to admit that they support it.
Perhaps a more accurate description would be: “Taxes are a way to redistribute income within our society to improve income mobility and mitigate class warfare.”
When thinking about taxes and redistribution of income, I think it’s better to consider what percentage of income any person has to pay for common assets (houses, burgers).
- The car example is better—the car people might not ask you how much you make, but the people supplying the financing do.
National Defense. You left out the part where the lower-income person has to actually go over and die to provide defense for everyone.
The lower-incomes brackets are grossly over-represented not just on an absolute basis, but in terms of the proportion of people from their respective income levels.
Public schools are terrible, but I disagree that the rich guy loses out. It’s his choice to send his kid to a private school—that’s like a rich person complaining that they have to pay more for first class on an airplane.
I would encourage all wealthy people to put their kids back in public school—maybe then someone will pay attention and actually improve the system. I don’t think it’s unrelated that as more wealthy families pull their kids out of public schools, the overall system deteriorates.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And how do you define "their share"? Are you saying that "their share" is proportionate to the goods and services they use?
Well, taking away my money that I earned in order to give it to another person didn't earn it is hardly "fair", and it certainly is "punishment".
And I think when we talk about "equality" we're talking equality of opportunity, not eqaulity of results.
Why should you be allowed to buy a new car if it "very clearly does not benefit the country"? Why should I be allowed to get that new camera if it "very clearly does not benefit the country"?
Come on, wyrdeone, neither your actions nor mine are measured by "how they benefit the country". Mussolini and Hitler are dead, thank God, and so is that philosophy.
You equate wealth with "obscenity"? What do you equate child molestation with, then?
If these people are above the law, then why do the top 1 percent of wealth owners pay 24% of all taxes in the United States? ( www.cbpp.org... )
And on the six o-clock news? How about Ken Lay and Enron and the folks at Tyco, and the people at Halliburton and the people at Arthur Anderson and martha Stewart and Michael Jackson? Are you and I watching the same six o'clock news?
We've done horrible things as a nation, and we deserve to fall.
I think tithe rates are appropriate. 10% across the board, for everyone, on income and capital gains.
Part of the problem is subsidies for the rich to build engines of profit.
I think equality of oppurtunity is basically eugenics. If that's what you want say it openly.
If you think dissallowing theft, bribery, and tax evasion is wrong, I'd say you were a criminal.
I don't think special rules need to apply. All we need is some common sense, and equal accountability.
What a ridiculous question! The word obscene is obviously strong...
I think any society that venerates wealth and decries responsibility is disgustingly shallow and inherently worthless. Feel free to disagree
Without a detailed analysis, this is all conjecture. That number, 24%, is that before or after tax credits? Is that before or after writeoffs for charity? Is that only on money declared? What about the money in foreign banks?
In any case, if you taxed everybody 10%, no getting out of it, no slick maneuvering, there would be more than enough to go around.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, taking away my money that I earned in order to give it to another person didn't earn it is hardly "fair", and it certainly is "punishment".
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Don't put words in my mouth, kid. If you think equality of opportunity is eugenics, then knock yourself out. I think that equality of opportunity is simply that everyone shold have the came chance to get ahead as anyone else.
If you think it should be disallowed, I'd say you were a criminal, too. But I dont see anything in this thread where either of us disallowed such things. Do you?
When you say "equal accountability", do you mean that each person should be equally accountable? If so I applaue you; that's exactly what I have been proposing for years. But it certainly doesn't seem like that's your philosophy, based on what you've said so far!
Of course the question is ridiculous. My point is if you want to make stupid comments (e.g., "profits are obscene") I can make stupid comments too. Now suppose you quit equating profits with obscenity, when we both know that obscenity has a completely different meaning.
If on the other hand, you want to cloud the argument with emotionally-laden terms, don't be surprised if you get the same thing in return.
I find it strange and wondrous indeed that, on the one hand, you seem to "decry responsibility" by proposing a society that, by its welfare removes responsibility from non-achievers, and yet you denounce a society which "decries responsibility".
I guess it depends on your definition of "responsibility" Perhaps you define it as "the responsibility the wealthy have to the non-wealthy"; I define it as "the responsibility that each person has to himself and his family."
Well, wyrdeone, that is the reason that I published the link: so that you could go there and see exactly what it was. If you choose to do so, a simple CTRL-click works wonders.
I assume you mean no deductions for mortgage interest, medical expenses, educational expenses, charitable deductions, etc. -- as well as no deductions for tax shelters, and any of the other shibboleths of the Left.
Okay, I agree.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Ability to pay does not imply progressiveness; I do not recall anywhere in "Wealth of Nations" where ol’ “Invisible Hand” calls for a progressive tax.
Not any more than a poorer person who gets to keep all of his money does! As a matter of fact, a confiscatory tax is a disincentive to work hard or get special education to advance oneself; I'd think that such disincentives would work against a "stable economy and a prosperous society" rather than for it.
I see no historical evidence for that whatsoever. Indeed, until the 20th century, every society, including that of Japan (which has been socially stable for almost 2000 years), has exhibited exactly the top-heaviness that you abjure.
I would say that history teaches, rather than that top-heavy societies are inherently unstable, is that such large discrepancies of wealth, irrespective of the reasons, are the norm, and not the exception.
One only has to look at the life style of Blacks in New York in 1920 compared to today to see this. In 1920’s a limited-tax, limited-government infrastructure resulted in a myriad of black small business owners. Compare that with the 3rd- and 4th-generation Black underclass today, recipients of the same largess that comes from confiscatory taxes.
How on Earth, in light of your affection for confiscatory taxes, do you explain that sad state of affairs?
I consider that comment disingenuous. As I mentioned in my previous post, I consider a flat tax system with no taxes at all for a family with an income of less than, say $25,000/year to be the best compromise between allowing wealthy people the fruits of their labors while ensuring that no one is deprived of necessities and needs.
Moreover, it would ensure that if I were ten times as rich as you, I would pay ten times as much taxes as you do, even though I probably won't use as much of the government’s support structure as you would.
And you say even that isn't enough?
Originally posted by lmgnyc
Perhaps you have overlooked The Great Depression. The main cause was the fact that the country was producing more than it could consume.
While clearly it isn't punishment except perhaps in the perspective of the greedy possessive (at worst anally retentive) materialist who understands nothing of the nature of giving, I would still be interested in a single example of how tax on any of your earnings is given directly to any other individual.
Originally posted by spamandham
Oh my! Someone needs a brief history lesson. The cause of the great depression was the federal reserve act and the subsequent monetary manipulation that followed, combined with the creation and destruction of markets resulting from WWI. Possibly, neither of these by itself would have been enough to cause such an economic disaster, but the combination certainly could.
Once it started rolling, FDR's programs helped sustain it.
Broad scale recessions, inflation, depressions, etc. are the result of the manipulation of money and the creation/destruction of temporary markets almost always in support of war.
Smaller scale booms and busts are to be expected, as the result of imperfect knowledge of future demand.