They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[ClearwaterVol]

I’ll gladly discuss this from any logical perspective you wish with you.

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

 

[Vol8188]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

Yet the conversations still have value. Even if neither of us changes our perspective. Why do you not wish to engage?

 

[AshG]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

Good luck, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Vol8188]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

To be perfectly honest too I think we agree on more than you believe.

You seem to believe at some point in history the middle class had a greater % of the wealth. Agreed.

I imagine we both agree they’re income/buying power is far greater today than from 1920-1980.

The main issue is you believe the wealth gap is bad. The only reason you’ve given for this that I’ve noticed is the poor may revolt against their current lives despite those lives being far better than they have been historically

 

[LouderVol]

A little overly simplistic but the point is made, and there is some legitimacy to it.
Another overly simplistic scenario.....18 year old Thurston Howell IV gets his tax bill delivered to his frat house at Harvard and 18 year old Elmer gets his out of the mail slot in the dilapidated mobile home he shares with his crack head mom and 3 younger siblings he is trying to provide for by working at Taco Bell and with a second job as a bag boy at the Piggly Wiggly. The concept that they benefitted equally will probably be humorous to one and infuriatingly asinine to the other.

Well done on the names, I got a chuckle on both.

But it still doesnt change the personal side of it.

Me buying mcdonalds meant I wasnt investing. Same with Elmer. We were all given the same benefit, but what we turned around and did with that benefit is on us.

Take your scenario. Thurston goes to the strip and blows his load in an hour. Elmer invests his return. Suddenly elmer is the one who benefits the most from his choices of what to do with the benefits. Especially when it comes to immediacy of need or proportion of total wealth.

100 bucks may be a good bit of money to Elmer, while Thurston probably wouldnt even notice 10Gs getting stolen from his capris. Thurston still got more total money, but the 100 Elmer got has a more immediate impact.

Your default argument rests on what are largely issues of scale. If thurston invests 10K and makes 10% return he walks away with 11K. Elmer invests 100 bucks and gets the same 10% ROI so he walks away with 110 bucks. You say the investment favors thurston even though it's the same ROI.

Instead you want thurston to invest 10k, end up with up 8k while elmer invest 100 bucks and ends up with 1000.

How is that any type of fair, equal, or equitable?

Your argument also denies the immediacy of the benefits. If Elmer gets food stamps and his family can eat, that's a far more immediate need addressed than thurston getting another yacht. It speaks to how wealthy we as a nation are when basic human requirements get downgraded to be less valuable than wants.

 

[luthervol]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

Wait, what? Two people can disagree without one of the two being stupid?
Maybe one just thinks with feelz while the other thinks with pure logic. There must be more than just differing perspectives.

 

[hog88]

I have a problem with your overall ideas.

I disagree income earners who cannot vote should be required to pay income tax.

Sucks to be an unmarried female.

I'm assuming that's what you're referencing.

 

[McDad]

Sucks to be an unmarried female.

I'm assuming that's what you're referencing.

Your daddy should've taught you about ass-u-me when you were younger.

Kids under 18.
Felons
Work visa immigrants

 

[McDad]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

What the hell??? Who let the adult on the board?

Sir, this is not the way to approach message board discussions.

 

[luthervol]

Well done on the names, I got a chuckle on both.

But it still doesnt change the personal side of it.

Me buying mcdonalds meant I wasnt investing. Same with Elmer. We were all given the same benefit, but what we turned around and did with that benefit is on us.

Take your scenario. Thurston goes to the strip and blows his load in an hour. Elmer invests his return. Suddenly elmer is the one who benefits the most from his choices of what to do with the benefits. Especially when it comes to immediacy of need or proportion of total wealth.

100 bucks may be a good bit of money to Elmer, while Thurston probably wouldnt even notice 10Gs getting stolen from his capris. Thurston still got more total money, but the 100 Elmer got has a more immediate impact.

Your default argument rests on what are largely issues of scale. If thurston invests 10K and makes 10% return he walks away with 11K. Elmer invests 100 bucks and gets the same 10% ROI so he walks away with 110 bucks. You say the investment favors thurston even though it's the same ROI.

Instead you want thurston to invest 10k, end up with up 8k while elmer invest 100 bucks and ends up with 1000.

How is that any type of fair, equal, or equitable?

Your argument also denies the immediacy of the benefits. If Elmer gets food stamps and his family can eat, that's a far more immediate need addressed than thurston getting another yacht. It speaks to how wealthy we as a nation are when basic human requirements get downgraded to be less valuable than wants.

Again, valid points. I was addressing the concept that all people should pay the same amount of tax (budget divided by people) because they share equally in the benefits afforded by birth in America.

 

[hog88]

A little overly simplistic but the point is made, and there is some legitimacy to it.
Another overly simplistic scenario.....18 year old Thurston Howell IV gets his tax bill delivered to his frat house at Harvard and 18 year old Elmer gets his out of the mail slot in the dilapidated mobile home he shares with his crack head mom and 3 younger siblings he is trying to provide for by working at Taco Bell and with a second job as a bag boy at the Piggly Wiggly. The concept that they benefitted equally will probably be humorous to one and infuriatingly asinine to the other.

So we should punish THIV since he and his family made better decisions than Elmers?

 

[hog88]

You and I have spoken. We disagree. We will never agree. There is no need to spend further time on the matter. I don't hate you. I don't think you're stupid. We just look at the same statistics and see the issues from two different angles.

But only 1 of you is using logic, the other's argument is based on emotion.

 

[hog88]

To be perfectly honest too I think we agree on more than you believe.

You seem to believe at some point in history the middle class had a greater % of the wealth. Agreed.

I imagine we both agree they’re income/buying power is far greater today than from 1920-1980.

The main issue is you believe the wealth gap is bad. The only reason you’ve given for this that I’ve noticed is the poor may revolt against their current lives despite those lives being far better than they have been historically

I think being on the gold standard for most of that time had a lot to do with it.

 

[McDad]

Again, valid points. I was addressing the concept that all people should pay the same amount of tax (budget divided by people) because they share equally in the benefits afforded by birth in America.

They do share the same benefits obtained by their citizenship. You can probably think of many benefits both share.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm confident everyone is sick of this silly back and forth. (I believe you are orangecrush - btw)
* a graduated tax scale alone does not make a tax system progressive. A graduated scale with a top rate of 5% would not be progressive.
* a high tax rate alone does not make a tax system progressive. If 80% are taxed at the highest rate, it is not progressive. (Sweden starts their highest rate at 1.7 times the average income.)
* a progressive tax system will have both a graduated scale and a high rate on the top end.

I'm going to try my best to not engage further in this part of the debate - everyone wish me luck.

On the one hand, I think there is a bit of a game they are playing with you on the word "progressive". You obviously used the word "progressive" to mean "more liberal", and they are feigning as though what you were really saying is "progressive" as in "a graduated tax system". I think they know what they are doing, but I do find it entertaining to see a liberal get twisted in knots over semantics because liberals are notorious for taking terms and trying to rename them to be more palatable. Just like "progressive" is now being used over the last decade by the left in the place of being called "liberal" in order to try to escape the negative connotations.

 

[hog88]

Your daddy should've taught you about ass-u-me when you were younger.

Kids under 18.
Felons
Work visa immigrants

I wasn't thinking along those lines because that's the case now and we weren't discussing voting eligibility. That's a different subject.

 

[luthervol]

So we should punish THIV since he and his family made better decisions than Elmers?

I wouldn't view it as punishment.
But even your preferred system of a flat 15% of income punishes the wealthy more than McDad's equal amount for everyone.
Why should THIV pay more in taxes just because he makes more?

 

[McDad]

I wasn't thinking along those lines because that's the case now and we weren't discussing voting eligibility. That's a different subject.

I understand.

Those groups pay income tax now. Under your system, they would pay as well. I don't agree with that. I think anyone unable to vote should not be paying income taxes.

 

[hog88]

I wouldn't view it as punishment.
But even your preferred system of a flat 15% of income punishes the wealthy more than McDad's equal amount for everyone.
Why should THIV pay more in taxes just because he makes more?

I like McDads idea and didn't argue against it. The point of the thread is to discuss ideas on taxation.

 

[volfanhill]

lol....The massive wealth/income inequalities invariably and understandably lead to wealth envy. The two are inseparable, especially when the system is perceived as unfair.

Jeff Bezos has considerable more money then me. In no way does it bother me. We need to fix the mental disorder that causes people to want to take from others bc they have not achieved what someone else has. This includes people who have inherited their money. The mental and societal problem lies with the person who is envious.

 

[hog88]

I understand.

Those groups pay income tax now. Under your system, they would pay as well. I don't agree with that. I think anyone unable to vote should not be paying income taxes.

If all I have to do to be exempt from paying income taxes is to be a convicted felon sign me up. Lost all my guns in the flood anyway.

 

[luthervol]

I like McDads idea and didn't argue against it. The point of the thread is to discuss ideas on taxation.

But you would agree that your plan "punishes" the rich when compared to McDads?

 

[LouderVol]

Again, valid points. I was addressing the concept that all people should pay the same amount of tax (budget divided by people) because they share equally in the benefits afforded by birth in America.

We are supposed to be equal in this country, not equitable. At least I dont remember seeing anything requiring equitability from our Consititution.

And you have yet to establish why we need to punish those who, at least in your opinion, benefit more, from an equal providence.

You rail against a perceived injustice yet every thing you suggest as remedy are actual injustices.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

But only 1 of you is using logic, the other's argument is based on emotion.

No, it really is not. There is a fundamental disagreement. Period. It is not based upon emotion.

 

[hog88]

But you would agree that your plan "punishes" the rich when compared to McDads?

Yes, I agree with that. McDads idea has been the only one presented that doesn't.