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.
The second reason is that the basic necessities of society life (shelter, food, gas, electricity, etc) cost the same, whether you make $18,000 a year or $300,000 a year.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
2. Its also irrelevant that commodity costs are the same. By that logic I could argue that the rich spend more on food such as champagne and cigars, and that their costs are thus higher and they deserve a bigger tax break.
Now why should a rich family have to divest or diffuse their wealth across a wider population just because the poor tend to have more children?
Originally posted by Resinveins
Maybe it's time the rich did the heavy lifting for a while eh?
I dont think the way is for the rich man to pay for the poor man's food. I think the rich man should provide employment and education to the poor man so that the poor man may better his own condition enough to provide food for his own family. Small difference in policy, big difference in outcome!
Originally posted by Gregarious
If our government actually followed the law, our Constitution says the Federal Government is the only body with the right to issue currency.
Originally posted by MC esher
The problem here is that the rich can afford lawyers to find loop holes and investments that make their gains look like losses.
Originally posted by Scramjet76
The answer is quite simple. Because they are rich. Who else are you going to tax?
My repsonse is do you think these folks would be that wealthy if they didn't have people working for them? It is a two-sided coin my friend.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Just because the rich can afford to be taxed at a higher rate, doesnt necessarily mean its moral to do so.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Howabout a 20% tax on everyone. NO loopholes. NO exceptions. (and no cpa's, either!)
Taxing people differently is TREATING them differently. What's next, separate tax rates for minorities, gays, christians, muslims, accountants, lawyers, etc.....?
Originally posted by marg6043
I have no problem with those that make more money to pay more taxes.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
But he's AGAINST a flat tax. Because it "wouldn't be fair to the poorest americans."
Lovely, isn't it?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't see it as punishment. I see it as the wealthy have been living pretty well for a long time. If they want to continue to live well and provide for their families with European trips and private planes, they had better chip in to help keep the rest of us alive. Or our economy will continue to fail and they will fall as well.
Originally posted by frayed1
Why is it so evil to expect the 'rich' to pay taxes?
Why shouldn't they share the upkeep of the country that they live in?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I agree that the struggle is harder for the poor man; but aren't we assuming that the rich man didn't struggle at all to make his home? What if the rich man was previously a poor man who worked hard enough to accumulate labour units (ie money), and consequently became rich. I dont think its moral to take away his hard earned money at any cost, even if it is to help another struggling man.
Most importantly however, I think that there is already intrinsic fairness in the concept of the percentage. Unfairness would be where each man had to pay 10,000 a year to the government regardless of his income. Then you could say that the poor man has to buy food, clothes and a home and still struggle to pay his tax share whereas the rich man can sneeze out the money in a second.
Would you punish a child if you put an opened cookie jar on the floor where he or she can easily get at it? No, that would be the parent's fault for being idiotic!
Originally posted by Scramjet76
Not the best analogy IMO. We aren't talking about children and cookies. We are talking about grown-ups who claim to have "good" morals.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
We do need an equation with a smoother curve to it, although I still believe the progressive tax system, if not overwhelmed by excessive spending, is the fairest overall.
emphasis added by strangecraft
Welfare is a needed socialistic safety net, but that safety net can easily become a hammock if it is not operated under the principles of capitalism
I would like to see the USA adopt a tax rate ranging form 0% on those making under $20K ($30K for families) to maybe 20% on those making over $300K ($500K for families)
Redneck, we probably never will agree completely.
But this ... encourages family breakdown, families are financially better off apart or at lease no worse off.