Why punish the rich with more taxes? AKA equal taxes or none at all!

The tax system is there to get the normal person to give to the rich.

It has been engineered that way for thousands of years..................

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Treating everyone the same... hmm. So you consider different taxing to treating people differently? See, I look at it the opposite.

If a crucial business is having trouble staying afloat, we subsidize it. If families can't afford taxes, we cut taxes for them.

Contrary to popular belief, the lower and middle classes are the backbone of this country. They are the workforce. They produce the goods. They work their tails off. They do the MAJORITY of the purchasing.

Of course, this only holds true when the economy is good - when the middle class isn't being squeezed and the lower class drowning. Look, taxing the upper class isn't the final solution. In fact, it is only a temporary solution to an age old problem that needs to be fixed.

You want people to be treated equally? That's easy. Every person who works full time should receive good benefits and fair pay.

Then you can have your flat tax.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
If a crucial business is having trouble staying afloat, we subsidize it. If families can't afford taxes, we cut taxes for them.

Oh fair liberals. Strong of heart but weak of mind!

Are you honestly suggesting that the rest of society support a failing business?! Really think about it. What does that leave?

IMO it would leave a nation full of loss making, subsidized businesses that contribute very little to society and are propped up at the expense of other, more successful people who are constrained by the demands being made upon their capital by the unsuccessful. Your proposition is a recipe for a perfect hindrance of success, and was essentially what goes wrong in every socialistic system.

This is why the free market must be used to weed out the weak from the strong. Only those businesses of worth and importance must survive, and the market is impartial and equal... it judges all equally and without bias.

And every family would be able to afford taxes under a flat tax system. If all those under the official poverty line were taxed at 0%, and all those above at 20% on the portion of their income above that; that would be fair.

Currently in the UK, people earning £35,000 a year have 40% of their income forcibly taken from them to give it away to the unemployed, lazy leeches squeezing out child after child who are given hundreds of pounds a week to subsidize their pathetic, worthless existance. In what world is that fair?

Extreme social welfare programs which subsidize either "failing" companies or humans (ie those who are able to work but refuse to do so) end up putting an unfair burden on success while excusing endemic failure.

Whats so wrong with everyone paying a percentage of their earnings? So if it was say... 10 percent of your income... everyone pays something. If you make more money, that 10 percent of course would be a lot more than someone who make less.... but still everyone pays their 10%.

*shrug* ...sort of what I though this country was founded on.... equality and the opportunity to be successful, not punished for it.

And no one owes anyone else a living. So those who don't have a desire to work don't need to be funded via our tax dollars through "wealth redistribution".

Well soulslayer, it would seem the government disagrees with your assessment of bailing out businesses and will do it no matter what the majority of americans want. And the point is illustrated right there that our system is not "fair" at all, the rich get to manipulate it while the poor dont, so trying to make it "fairer" by keeping the poor from getting a share is hardly a decent choice.
And i disagree, in the UK the folk arent giving 40% of their money away to the homeless, the lazy, the inept, etc. They are getting something in exchange for that money, a universal healthcare system better than the US, A guaranteed education for every single citizen that is already paid for, more humane work schedules and time to spend with newborns, and i imagine that this is one of the reasons why life in the UK is so much less violent than life in the US. People keep talking of "failed socialist experiments" and "failed socialist countries" well, the UK is FULL of successful socialist experiments and we can hold those up as alternatives to our recently and disastrously "failed" capitalist experiment.

Not to pick on the UK, but, I don't want to live there. And it really is because of the business climate.

Originally posted by pexx421
And i disagree, in the UK the folk arent giving 40% of their money away to the homeless, the lazy, the inept, etc. They are getting something in exchange for that money, a universal healthcare system better than the US,

A guaranteed education for every single citizen that is already paid for, more humane work schedules and time to spend with newborns, and i imagine that this is one of the reasons why life in the UK is so much less violent than life in the US.

Gee, I can think of some other "effects" you seemed to have omitted; like a soaring alcoholism rate, and an over all crime rate AHEAD of the United States (even with our guns available at walmart!!!!) (link to NationMaster statistics)

People keep talking of "failed socialist experiments" and "failed socialist countries" well, the UK is FULL of successful socialist experiments and we can hold those up as alternatives to our recently and disastrously "failed" capitalist experiment.

As much as I like the UK, comparing it with any other state is trying to compare apples and oranges. Their people have a different set of values than Murkins, which is fine.

I'll just say that I wouldn't want to live in a country run that way, and neither would many other Americans. The whole reason that so many british artists have been coming to America for 40 years is purely and simply their desire to escape the "tax man" of the eponymous beatles' track.

To make a short story long, I think socialism appeals most to people living in mature (or corrupt) economies, where there isn't much opportunity for personal initiative to be rewarded.

.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If separate education is unfair, if separate justice is not really justice, how can separate taxes for different parts of the population be called.....fair?

Christ that's a great point!

I am happy that I made this thread (and I am happy that so many agree with how I feel). Taxing the wealthy more simply because they have more wealth really isn't fair! I just hope, no matter how "un-wealthy" (yeah, I made that up) people are, that people realize this. Thanks for contributing all!

Originally posted by they see ALL

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If separate education is unfair, if separate justice is not really justice, how can separate taxes for different parts of the population be called.....fair?

Christ that's a great point!

I am happy that I made this thread (and I am happy that so many agree with how I feel). Taxing the wealthy more simply because they have more wealth really isn't fair! I just hope, no matter how "un-wealthy" (yeah, I made that up) people are, that people realize this. Thanks for contributing all!

'From all according to ability, (wealth), to all according to need' Wasn't that Marx who said that? I don't recall. But it is socialism/communism and that is what is now supposedly destined for the White House. You no longer live in the land of the free. Get used to it.

I think it needs to be reiterated; the most equitable, or fair, tax would seem to be inflation. It taxes any holders of money, period. EXCEPT in our current setup, where the private British bank called the Federal Reserve LOANS out the money to the US Government, after THEY have 'created' it. And they 'earn' BILLIONS in interest every year for that 'priviledge' of borrowing the money that THEY create. This scam apparently cost JFK his life, and others I am sure. Who would you be willing to kill for trillions of dollars?

The reality... Only the rich have enough money that the government can get it's hands on.

How much can you squeeze out of your average person... Not much. You could force me to sell my house, and take the profits but who would buy a house if the government takes them and sells them?

So the answer is follow the money. In this case, a small portion of the population has the money. So there's your answer.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


i like this line of thinking. is this what people mean by a flat tax? i would love it if i paid only %20 and could not use any deductions. now only if you could get all the income levels to accept this, this plan might work? i am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, so can anyone enlighten me on the pro's and con's of such a system?

reply to post by they see ALL


It's not going to tax rich people.

It's going to tax the upper middle class.

Basically, it's going to destroy the upper middle class so that there is no way for people to reach the upper class (keeping the wealthy and elite where they are).

The lower class will get benefits, the upper middle will get taxed, and the current middle class may or may not be affected. This will bring the lower and upper middle classes in line with the current middle class.

That leaves 2 classes: The rich and the rest of us.

I don't think Obama intends for this... he's just attempting to fight greedy rich people. Or maybe he does... who knows anymore?

I think that a flat tax would be best,only bad thing can't write off interest on mortgages,and I think the government should have a tight grasp on a yearly budget,we have no idea where the tax money is going,need some accountability,do away with all the special programs and run bare bones till things square up

If you take the Federal, state, county, and local budgets, add them up, it equals 75% of the GNP. So, think hard now, how much is our tax? Keep in mind that the lower class don't pay Federal, but all the rest, and the upper class usually don't pay any Fed, that leaves almost all the Federal budget to the middle class. If you make higher taxes for the upper class, congress has to go to great lengths to make more loopholes so their 'donners' don't have to pay any again. The current set up is a SCAM. Anytime you can have 'earmarks' attached to bills to exempt certain individuals, I call that legalized bribery. Did you know that, I think it is 60% of the federal budget is 'black' now? Unaccounted for. But we can trust these guys, sure thing!

reply to post by they see ALL


You say tax everyone equally.. but I think you mean use the same percentage of taxes, and assume that makes it equal.

Do you know why originally only landowners could vote? Because they had something to lose. We have opened this up over the last couple centuries, however, now the group which has the most to lose, and also takes the greatest advantage from the US also pays the LEAST amount of taxes.

I agree it should be equal, but your measurement by percentages of individual income does not make it in any way equal.