reply to post by Jezus
Okay my friend, I will try to explain this to you one last time. If you can’t stay on point or just refuse to see reason then I will just have to
call it a lost cause.
The conversation started in a debate over whether or not using a sliding scale on tax rates was punishment for those who earned more money. Then I
gave the analogy of the two people buying the same item at the market.
Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
Using sales tax as an analogy, its like one person standing in line behind another in the market and both are buying the exact same item. The cashier
asks the first guy a for a total of $1, he pays and leaves (he represents the people who receive all or more than what he paid in), the cashier rings
up the second guy whose total should be the same because he is buying the same item, instead the cashier ask the man for $1.25. So having seen the
previous customer pay less he is then prompted to ask why he was given a higher total. The cashier tells him that because he makes more than $240k per
year, he is required to pay a 25% tax whereas the other customer only makes 10k per year and is not required to pay any and is also given coupons for
his next visit. So before the second customer walks away he ask why he was not given coupons as well. The cashier tells him that they are not allowed
to give him any coupons because he makes enough to pay full price.
Because the second customer knows that he got no more than the first, he feels as if he is being punished for making more money. Does this seem fair
to you? It is the same concept. We all receive the same basic services from the government and some low income household receive more services yet pay
little or nothing. Typically, the upper middle class and the wealthy receive only the basics from Uncle Sam and pay a substantially higher amount at a
much higher tax rate in addition to paying luxury taxes on big ticket items
To which you responded by saying that the sliding scale was fair because according to you, the wealthy depend on the government more than others to
protect their right to own and trade, and because they use more natural resources and cause pollution. At least that’s what I think you were
Originally posted by Jezus
"The Rich" actually benefit from and depend on "the Government" most for their life style.
The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than
"The Government" is what allows "The Rich" to play with abstract concepts but still control real physical variables.
Originally posted by Jezus
"The Rich" benefit the most from natural resources and the pollution of the environment. However, the rest of us both have to deal with the
consequences of that pollution AND do the manual labor to turn natural resources into the structure of society.
If that is indeed your justification for taxing at a higher rate, then yes the higher tax rate is punitive. If the government penalizes business
owners for the pollution that they cause by taxing them at a higher rate than those who make less than $340,000.00 per year, then the taxes are by
your own definition punitive.
Rights are rights no matter how much a citizen earns. If you take away a mans livelihood the result will be same no matter how much he earns, but you
seem to think a wealthy person has more to lose if he is not protected. If you stop and think about it, it is actually the government that stands to
lose if his business goes under. They would lose tax revenue from not only him, but would also have to pay unemployment and would lose taxes from the
people that lost their jobs when the company was closed. The Bill of Rights protects everyone even the government by protecting the right to own and
I went on to say that because these products would not be produced if there were no societal demand for them and because we all use and enjoy the
products that use natural resources and cause pollution during their production, we are all responsible for said pollution and used resources becuase
we as consumers are the reason that it is there in the first place. No one would mass produce a product that consumers didn't already express an
intrest in buying.
The point is that those who earn more than $340k should have to pay taxes on every dollar that they make and so should the people who only make $34k,
but at the same rate. The people that I was referring to originally were people like my father-in-law who makes around $350k a year working in the
pharmaceutical industry. He does not cause any more pollution or use any more natural resources than any other person. He doesn’t require any
assistance from the government and his property requires no more protection than those in the lowest tax bracket. Yet he pays 35% of his earnings to
the government while I only pay 25%, while some receive most or all back via return, and while some are returned more than they paid in.
How does he depend on the government more, pollute, or use more natural resources than I do? We live in the same damn neighborhood for Christ sake!
And how do you figure that the government does more for me than it does for the family that lives in the projects and receives welfare? The government
protects my personal safety the same way that it does for those who earn less than me, and those who earn less than me have the same right to work
hard and succeed as I do. So how exactly do those in the upper-middle class depend on the government more? Why do you say that I am not paying more
per dollar earned for just the minimum government services than those who earn a low income and yet receive more?
We all are given the right to own property and the opportunity to pursue success. Those who do neither should still be required to pay taxes in order
to protect their rights even if they do not exercise them, and those who do exercise those rights should not be penalized because they did. Local
governments have no problem understanding this concept. Even though you may not have any kids in public schools, you still have to pay school taxes.
But if and when you do use it, they will not tax you at a higher rate.
THESE NEXT QUESTIONS I MUST INSIST THAT YOU ANSWER...
Am I then correct when I assume that according to you, the same principle should not be applied to civil rights?
Also, why is there a higher tax rate for the upper and upper-middle class people who share the same civil rights as the lower and lower middle
classes? Why do those who do not own their own company and therefore do nothing differently except earn more money have to pay more per dollar even
when taxed at an even rate they would still have contributed more?
You can say that they aren't being punished, but you also can't give me an explaination as to how this is fair.
edit on 6-8-2011 by
TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)