Flawed logic. The top 1% still have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money left than other people, so there is most definitely a reason to succeed. (or do you think that after taxes you have just as much money left to spend as, say, Bill Gates does?)

Lenny, I didn't distort ANYTHING. I merely pointed out your inaccuracies. how that makes you look is up to the facts.

You believe the rich should be taxed more than you so that your parents can be taken care of by other peoples money. You don't want your child to have a 10 trillion dollar debt so you expect the rich to bail you out there too.
how about stepping up to the plate and paying the exact same rate (flat tax) as everyone else. Then your argument would have merit.

yeah! so lets take it!
Then those of us living in punkworld can got all the social extras that we want without having to pay for them.

I'm getting the feeling it's exactly the other way around.

So you consider your children having a fourth television more important than the life of another child?

In other words, the lives of other people mean very little or nothing to you.

Do some research, since what you are saying now is plain nonsense. Even acccording to your own government, 13% of the people in your country live in poverty.
And, I do consider food and shelter as part of the absolute basics to live.

I wish I had as much after tax money as bill gates. If you put , for example, a Playstation 2 on the market for 1000$, some people will buy. If you had put it on more $500, more people would buy it. If you put it on for $200, a whole shit load of people would buy it. This is supply vs. demand and it holds true for people's time as well. If the reward for being successful is greater than more people will be successful. Don't you think its a little bit fucked up that you earn $400,000 and keep $200,000 (80% of that 200,000 goes to social programs by the way). I'm sure thats enough to discourage some people.

I don't understand why all the liberals who want to help the woman and child by carrying more, don't just carry more.

Why is it that everyone has to carry more for the woman and child just because Joe Liberal thinks they should?

Like I said before, I only want everyone to have the basic necessities, after that I'm all for extreme wealth.

correct me if i'm wrong, as i dont claim to be an expert on this..

here is my simpleminded reasoning:

income tax encourages you to spend more on business expenses rather than personal expenses.. causing more investment.. basically investments cost less than luxury.. employee payrolls are also included in these business expenses, so they cost less too, encouraging you to employ more people..

on the other hand, higher sales tax will discourage consumption and the demand on products.. demand is what drives the production, which brings the main income of the corporations who pay all the people in the first place.. lower consumption would cause a chain reaction towards making people poorer..


anything wrong with this logic?

Please back your numbers up with something other than a radio quote from Rush Limbaugh.

The top one percent of the US pay 37.4% of taxes.
The top one percent of the US own 40% of the wealth.

That looks pretty proportionate to me.

You would get discouraged by having more than 5 times as much as the average american left after taxes?
And, you are leaving out something rather important. It's not about not having a playstation, but about not having anything to eat.

Yes, according to the fairtax proposal, business expenses are not taxable. The same motivation to spend on business holds true.

is the difference as big as 30+% as it is with the income tax?


what about the discouragement towards the personal expenses of middle-class people which is what drives the economy?

Because just about everyone wants others to take their load for a while if they sprain their ankle. Even Joe Republican. That's why in a democratic country such taxes can exist.

this from a guy who defines communism and then calls it something else.



no, but your envy of the rich is starting to show. :1orglaugh



when wieghed against the lives of my own? yes.



son, again you're exposing your lack of education. "living in povery" is not the same as "dying from poverty"

now I guess you really want them to have a nice house and fancy car. I guess *thats* "absolute basics to live" in punkworld.

What the fuck does a playstation have to do with anything. I was using it as an example of the supply and demand economic model. And I didn't say nobody would want to succeed. I said less people would want to succeed.

I never said I expected the rich to bail me out of anything. You said that. Again you're putting words in my mouth to make me fit this preconceived idea you have about liberals.

If I paid a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes was pushing my rate would go down.....way down.

making enemies is good.

'More to lose than necessary
And far too much to gain
I'm going down, down, down, down
Hide the pain

Of all the sharks in all the waters
I cut but I don't bleed
And you can feed me babe, feed me babe
It's all I need

And makin' enemies is good
I've got a brand new hate for you
Makin' enemies is good
Mind over matter

Try to make a monkey of me
And I'll swing back and say
You make it easy man, easy man
It's a holiday

I don't need your fake assed friendship
Or your silicon symphaty
You've got a brand new fuck you
enemy

I don't hear you I don't need you'

There's a difference between helping someone who sprained their ankle and carrying someone's load for them because they just don't want to or they didn't plan their load properly.

And taxes do not exist to carry the load for lazy people. They exist to pay essential services like roads, an army, etc. Things that everyone uses and benefits from.

Guess who I'm quoting here:
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

Actually, it would be at least 30%. The proposal is a 23% sales tax + 7% average exisiting state and local tax + whatever percentage the states use instead of income tax.

yes, there would be some discouragement to spend and more encouragment to save but todays savings is tommorow's spendings. Besides that a Harvard study estimated that 20-30% of consumer prices were due to income taxes. So prices should drop enough to balance out some of the increased sales tax.

Your example compared income to a playstation. However, some people use their income for other things than luxury articles.
And why would less people want to succeed if succeeding still means a huge difference in comparison to not succeeding?

"So, you mean I'll only make a million a year?! Well, in that case I'd rather get by on 50 bucks a week."

yes you did, when you were busy explaining why we can't give the rich a tax cut. you pretended it was for the good of the people so I clarified your position. it was for the good of the people as long as it meant someone besides you paid more.

and you'd be here railing against the inequity of it because those rich bastards got such a huge break.

look, this was fun but I've got a Tee time to catch. (I'll be golfing while the people who's load I don't want to carry die)

see you goobers later.

http://www.mtn.org/iasa/povstats.html

Says that the richest 1% has more than the bottom 90% combined.

We could do this all day, but we're not going to agree.
Pointless really.

In my opinion, those who can work and do not don't deserve to get any money. I have no problems whatsoever with people starving because of their own laziness.
However, you also mentioned those that didn't plan properly - do you think a mistake (which everyone can make) should mean you starve?

I disagree about the fun part, but we're never going to agree so I'm just going to let this one go and call it a day.

Not planning properly doesn't necessarily mean a mistake was made.

If I know my rent is due in 5 days, but I take my rent money and buy a new Playstation (sorry had to use that as an example), I didn't plan properly, but I didn't make a mistake and I do deserve to be evicted and starve.

The reason less people would (not want to) but have the motivation to succeed is the same reason less people would buy a playstation if it costs $1000. It's not like you can flip a swith a be rich, it takes a lifetime of work. I remember a time a while ago that I had to pass up a pay raise because it would have ended up costing me money.

But in that case, you did have enough money for food/shelter in the first place. You just screwed up with it, and should take full responsibility for that.

Do you Karl Marx lovers really want to go back to the days of FDR and a top rate of 96%?

:glugglug

And your point is? Being rich is only worth a lot of hard work if you can be extremely rich, not if you'll just be very rich?
That makes no sense to me.

btw, I have no problem supporting some guy who worked for 12 years at a job, got laid off unexpectedly, has two kids, a wife, the house, etc, for a limited time while he finds another job.

I do have a problem with supporting people like 22 year old women with 5 kids and no job, lazy people who were taught that the govt will take care of them, and shit like that.

I also have a problem with taking care of people above a level that someone actually working gets to live at.

If you make no money, you can live off the govt like you make $30k a year. If you are actually working and make $22k, you get nothing. That is hardly fair and gives no incentive to go and work. It reinforces the idea that living off the govt is the way to go.

There is no need or reason for people on welfare to be buying steaks and lobsters with their food stamps (for example), or living in brand new places that people actually working cannot afford. If you want to live off the govt, you should live at the bottom of the barrel.

Your article is about the intire world, I was talking about the US. And I'm not arguing that the richest people aren't realy rich. Im arguing that they pay a high percentage of their incomes. And your right, we'll never agree.

The largest group of poor people are the working poor, those who do work but just make very, very little money. (13% of americans live in poverty, 5% are unemployed)

I myself am in favor of a simpler system without "tax levels" and such, one where someone that makes money will automatically have more than someone who doesn't, and someone who makes more money will have more money.

Yes, thats pretty much what I am saying. If I can earn $150,000 and keep $100,000 or earn $300,000 and keep $150,00, its probably not worth the responibility that comes along with earning $300,000 for the extra $50,000. And once again, I said our tax system discourages success, not eliminates it.

He was referring to this part:
As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.

5% unemployment ratio does not mean 5% of this country is unemployed. It means 5% of this country is seeking employment through a government agency.

Why wouldn't it be worth it? Increasing your income by 50% is quite a bit.

sorry, missed that

Those who work and make very little money need to find a second job or acquire some skills of some kind, and live within their means until they can work their way out. I've lived on a $160/week after taxes, and I went through a hell of a lot of effort just to make that shitty amount of money.

It can be done, you just can't afford to buy a new TV, new car, game systems, new furniture, all the music you want, etc, and you have to do shit like live in crappy places for a while and eat a hell of a lot of chicken and spaghetti because they're cheap.

And before anyone accuses me of making it sound simple, I've done it and my friends have done it. There is no excuse that flies with me for not being able to work your way out of a situation if you really want to.